Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law - Page 4
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 74

Thread: Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    You might want to read some of those links again.

    "Direct, well-documented sales of guns by dealers to gang members account for less than 2% of the total."

    "The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members."

    "One important thing to note is that the average time between when a gun is purchased and when it's used in a crime is over 10 years."

    "That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm."

    "On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers. While some of these illicit transactions are purchases, they also take a variety of other forms."

    Those are from the first four links that came up in that search. It's very clear that most guns used by criminals do NOT come from straw buyers and corrupt FFLs as you claimed.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    When the state violates a basic right, that's when the Fed stepping in to put an end to the violation is warranted and appropriate.

    States have no right to do whatsoever they please on whatever topic they like. States ratified the Constitution and have agreed to abide by basic rules; one of those rules is to not infringe upon the RKBA.
    I love a healthy discussion. So I hope you receive the things I write with nothing more than me being a guy with a thoughtful opinion. Who knows, you might change my mind! A month ago, owning a gun had never crossed my mind.

    I don't disagree with the theory of your argument. However, what do you consider a 'violation?' To me that seems like the ultimate question of how legitimate federal interference may or may not be. For example, if you consider it a violation of basic right to need a permit to carry in the first place, then the idea of requiring any standard besides adulthood to own and carry a gun should be of federal concern and intervention. But if, on the other hand, you feel the permits for carry are useful, safety precautions then you naturally accept some level of inconvenience or limitation for our freedom; limitations that vary state to state due to the conditions of the residents/citizens in those states (suicide rates, crime rates, sheer will and desire of the people as voted for by those people, etc.). I have no issue conceding that some things should be revisited as they relate to federal law. To me, owning a silencer also seems silly. But needing an additional background check to own one seems more absurd to me. And since it's a law the feds made in the first place, repeal it. It's their turf.

    At the end of the day, would it be super convenient to carry wherever I wanted? Sure, of course. I just think a lot of, not all of, this boils down to being inconvenienced, not violated. People love to say that freedom comes at a cost. It's so true that it does. In this case, the costs are criminals and people in need of mental/emotional help, among many other factors.
    :: Blue ::

  4. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    You might want to read some of those links again.

    "Direct, well-documented sales of guns by dealers to gang members account for less than 2% of the total."
    Straw purchesers would not show up as gang members. Also, FFL transactions using identity theft would not show up as gang members, either.

    Think before you post, please.

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Those are from the first four links that came up in that search. It's very clear that most guns used by criminals do NOT come from straw buyers and corrupt FFLs as you claimed.
    The ATF disagrees: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ocon/guns.html

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by bluerollick View Post
    I don't disagree with the theory of your argument. However, what do you consider a 'violation?'
    As it pertains to this topic, a violation is any limit meant to undermine the right. An infringement.

    Clearly, requiring one to show "good cause" merly to hold a gun at a store (New York) is one such infringement.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueshell View Post
    Does that mean authorities should crack down on FFLs? Would that reduce straw purchases? Just asking.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United Socialist Republic of New York
    Posts
    369

    Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law

    Here is the issue on a national level, and I apologize if this has been stated already as I may have missed it.

    The Constitution is set forth to guarantee God given rights and limit the government from restricting them. Amendments used to limit rights have no place and ultimately fail.

    This being said, the right to protect yourself is inalienable. This is not only true, it has been stated by SCOTUS.

    States, and in some cases counties, have restricted the right to protect yourself with a firearm and other defensive weapons. This gives the Federal Government not only the jurisdiction but the duty to step in.

    States rights issues are paramount to our system of government BUT they must not act in an unconstitutional or oppressive way.

    This is the system working the way it was designed to. National Reciprocity is a must to stop oppressive and unconstitutional regulations.

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    Does that mean authorities should crack down on FFLs? Would that reduce straw purchases? Just asking.
    Yes.

    A thousand times YES :)

    As I say, treat it like tobacco where ATF agents act out the behavior of a straw purches and crucify the corrupt FFL who sells the gun to them.

    Make an example out of that FFL and other dealers will self-regulate.

    Enforcement works!

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    A Google search for substantiating a statistical claim? My goodness. Sourcing etiquette doesn't get any more invalid than that...
    Well, to be fair, I was only asking him the source for the assertion.

    But the data at his provided link did prove his assertion to be wrong, so it all evens out in the wash I guess.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Well, to be fair, I was only asking him the source for the assertion.

    But the data at his provided link did prove his assertion to be wrong, so it all evens out in the wash I guess.
    Keep ignoring my post 34 and what the ATF has to say about it.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast