04-09-2018, 04:14 PM
(04-09-2018, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The term rant is a rather loaded word. I've merely pointed out what I've seen with my own eyes and explained why 2A proponents are leery of the intentions behind proposed legislation.
It may be a loaded term to use. In all sincerity, though, I don't think it was misused based on some of the posts on the subject. Just my personal perspective on the conversations. Take from that what you will.
(04-09-2018, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't have a problem with waiting periods, although it makes zero sense for someone who owns multiple firearms to have to wait for another one. I'd like to buy a nice over under within the next few months (Benelli 828U), it doesn't really make any sense that I need to wait ten days to pick it up after purchase. I don't have a problem with expanded background checks. I'd almost certainly have major problems with any "assault weapons" ban, based on the facts that rifles account for a miniscule percentage of firearm related homicides, much less rifles with "assault" features. Why is a mini-14 kosher but an AR15 is a "weapon of war"?
I prefer a situation where waiting periods are sort of built in. For instance, a permit-to-purchase set up would require action prior to purchasing a firearm. You would eliminate the potential for someone, first time purchaser or not, so just walk into a store and purchase a firearm on the spot without prior planning. It's not a perfect solution, but if this were a system funded by grants so that localities could issue permits to purchase (like they do a concealed carry permit in many places, now), there would be a background check built in. Seller contacts issuing jurisdiction to verify the permit is still valid, voila. Since the issuer is usually a court, then they would have the record of any crime to revoke the permit.
Anyway, this is all getting into the weeds on that subject a bit. Suffice it to say I have a policy plan that I think would work great.
As for the AWB, I agree the idea is stupid. I don't care about it too much because I have zero need for a semi-automatic firearm of any sort, let alone something like what would be banned in such a legislation. But I do have an issue with the seemingly arbitrary determining factors in such a legislation.Policy should make sense, and I haven't seen an AWB that does.
(04-09-2018, 03:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get what you're saying here, Matt. Can you acknowledge that firearms laws in extreme states such as CA and NJ have made a national debate on this subject far more problematic by illustrating just how far the Democrats are willing to go on this subject when given the political power to act?
Oh, extremists on this issue like those in CA and NJ are doing a shit job and do make it harder to have the debate. Extremists on the other side make it equally as difficult. There is a lot of distortion of facts on both sides of this debate, manipulation of data in an effort to score points.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
