Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Founding Fathers... (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well since you did not expand on the term . . . (0+ / 0-)

      "you" and "your", I hope I'm correctly assuming you were speaking to me. I didn't assume anything about you because I was actually responding to what  byzantium said.
        I just think arguing against guns is a losing proposition. The easier way to get at the problem of these mass murders is to address the mental illness aspect. Banning "assault weapons" ain't gonna do it.

    •  well I might agree with you (0+ / 0-)

      but I am not sure.  Sure mental health is a part of the problem, but I don't see from this a solution.  Those who think lunatics are "allowed" to purchase firearms through traditional means are simply wrong.  If the laws need to be changed to improve on this prohibition, that is a likely a good thing.

      As per you assumption that I was speaking to you, the fact that my response was to another should  quell that idea.  

      •  and in fact (0+ / 0-)

        There are many sane people committing murders with weapons they legally own, and who, if it took a little more effort to take someone's life, might think the better of it. Just from the perspective of reducing domestic violence deaths alone, it makes good sense to regulate firearms.

        •  I hear what you are saying byzantium (0+ / 0-)

          and it seems heartfelt.  I am not going to discount it out of hand, but I do have a question.  If you believe murders of passion will be reduced if the killer is required to exert more effort; does that not imply that the real problem lies elsewhere?

          •  And those issues should also be address (0+ / 0-)

            If you look at murder through the lens of age and gender, 18-24 year old males have the highest rates of homicide.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that testosterone and poor impulse control are big factors.  

            Time and life experience and social relationships are going to reduce their propensity for rash violent actions. In the meantime, reduced access to the easiest, and least personal, of tools for taking a life is going to help.

            In Israel, I seem to recall, you can't get a license to own a gun until age 27.  That, my friend, is a policy that targets gun violence and this demographic in a way that is not much different from how we license drivers.  

            You see, I'm looking at guns as a social problem not unlike smoking in public places.  And you are looking at them as what?

    •  The point I'm trying to make is this: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TurkeyCreek

         You are not going to make much progress going after guns. SCOTUS has ruled. I think doing something comprehensive about the mental health issue is possible. The families of these people are begging for help. Nothing comprehensive is going to be done about guns. I hope we expand the background check to gun shows and the internet. That's probably all that's possible.

      •  let me take this opportunity to explain the gun (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lorell

        show loop-hole to those who want to know the real facts.  I  don't care if people agree with me on guns or any other political issue, but I have proven through many years here that I do not lie about the facts.

        Many people talk about the "gun show loophole" but I wonder if they really know what that means. And to be clear, I am including politicians when I say this.

        Here are the hard facts, with no political opinion involved.  There really is no "gun show loop-hole".  What it comes down to is this.  There are two types of sellers at gun shows.  There are the traditional sellers, who have federal firearms licenses, and there are average joes who have nothing but some guns they might sell and others they might buy.

        The traditional sellers are licensed FFA  holders, they are required to run all sales through the NCIS (national criminal background check) just like any gun store, it doesn't matter if they are at a gun show or a swap meet, it is the law.

        The so called gun show loop-hole really describes the non gun dealers who usually buy a booth and then display a few guns to sell.  These are legally regular citizens just like you and me, but they plunked down a few quid to have a table at a gun show.

        So here is the rub.  In most states, people are allowed to sell their property.  It is no different than selling a car or even a t.v.    It does not matter if the sale takes place at a gun show, a parking lot, or your living room.

        So the only way to end the "gun show loop-hole" is for a federal law that says individuals can not sell their firearms property to another individual unless the buyer goes through an NCIS check.  So if I own a gun, and want to sell it to my buddy, we would have to go to the local gun shop and run an NCIS on my buddy before the sale, and at a price of course.

        Anyway, no one can deny what I have said here, it is simple fact.  So I hope people at least now know what is meant by the "gun show loop-hole".  I am not arguing either way here, I played it strait down the middle.  

        Simple translation of the "gun show loop-hole" is that many want to federally legislate that gun owners can not sell there firearm property to another person without an NCIS check.  It really has nothing to do with gun shows.  As a said, gun dealers with ffa licences must run the same checks at gun shows as they do in gun shops.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site