Gun control--Just imagine the possibilities! - Page 6 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 12-23-2012, 09:49 AM   #151
Jeeper
 
drossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: NW Chicago 'Burbs
Posts: 68
Images: 6
There was assault weapons ban in place when Columbine hapend.

Oops, excuse me me keyboard mispelled happened.

drossman is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 09:55 AM   #152
Jeeper
 
Raiderfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Knob Noster, MO
Posts: 7,381
Damn those keyboards. Always making typos

Raiderfan001 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 10:11 AM   #153
Jeeper
 
TeleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 81
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by txsmokeater View Post
Gun bans are just plain stupid.
Baseball bats kill more people each year than guns, are we going to ban those and shut down the MLB?

In my opinion.
Since people on both sides are quoting things with no basis in reality, I thought I'd look into the claim above. Even on its face, it seems completely impossible. Other than in the early 80's movie "The Warriors," I can't remember any roving gangs of bat-wielding miscreants, and unless post-game World Series hostilities break out, I don't see bats being a huge problem.


Homicides by Weapon Type


Handgun Other gun Knife Blunt object Other weapon

1982 9,137 3,501 4,383 1,032 2,957
1983 8,472 2,794 4,214 1,098 2,731
1984 8,183 2,835 3,956 1,090 2,626
1985 8,165 2,973 3,996 1,051 2,794
1986 9,054 3,126 4,235 1,176 3,018
1987 8,781 3,094 4,076 1,169 2,980
1988 9,375 3,162 3,978 1,296 2,869
1989 10,225 3,197 3,923 1,279 2,877
1990 11,677 3,395 4,077 1,254 3,037
1991 13,101 3,277 3,909 1,252 3,161
1992 13,158 3,043 3,447 1,088 3,024
1993 13,981 3,094 3,140 1,082 3,233
1994 13,496 2,840 2,960 963 3,071
1995 12,050 2,679 2,731 981 3,169
1996 10,731 2,533 2,691 917 2,777
1997 9,705 2,631 2,363 833 2,678
1998 8,844 2,168 2,257 896 2,805
1999 7,943 2,174 2,042 902 2,461
2000 7,985 2,218 2,099 727 2,556
2001 7,900 2,239 2,090 776 3,032
2002 8,286 2,538 2,018 773 2,588
2003 8,830 2,223 2,085 745 2,645
2004 8,304 2,357 2,133 759 2,595
2005 8,478 2,868 2,147 671 2,528

Sorry I don't have anything more recent, but unless bat violence has skyrocketed, it doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm guessing this BS talking point is propagated because of a goofy article "written" in 2020 (in a gun-free world) when, because guns are illegal, criminals turn to bats.

Regardless of your side of the argument, using false "facts" to back up your argument doesn't help and only makes people regard the remainder of your argument as worthless.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: Trends in homicides by weapon type table
__________________
2013 Commando Green JKR purchased 11/19/12
TeleMark is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 10:40 AM   #154
Jeeper
 
Jackalope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi View Post
Then you interpretation of the constitution does set limits? Or is "That's retarded"? BTW, why do you believe Madison wrote the 2nd amendment for a newly established republic?
That would be the 2nd Amendment, which has never been changed by the Amendment process by any party or group of people in over 200 years, right? The same Amendment that Democrats could've tried to change (if they had support for changing it) a thousand times by now, right? Same one?
Jackalope is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 10:43 AM   #155
Jeeper
 
Jackalope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post


The Constitution restricts government, it says nothing about me or what I can have.
Exactly right.

As for the argument about a bb gun or a grenade launcher, the answer is not in the weapon, but in the action.

I don't particularly care if you have a hydrogen bomb in your basement as long as it's properly maintained and used responsibly. How something is USED is what's important. Making the owner responsible for his actions. None of these weapons are dangerous unless improperly used and that use is what should be regulated.
Jackalope is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 10:58 AM   #156
Jeeper
 
TeleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 81
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackalope View Post
Exactly right.

As for the argument about a bb gun or a grenade launcher, the answer is not in the weapon, but in the action.

I don't particularly care if you have a hydrogen bomb in your basement as long as it's properly maintained and used responsibly. How something is USED is what's important. Making the owner responsible for his actions. None of these weapons are dangerous unless improperly used and that use is what should be regulated.
To whom does this responsibility fall?
__________________
2013 Commando Green JKR purchased 11/19/12
TeleMark is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 11:09 AM   #157
Jeeper
 
Jackalope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
I don't understand your question. If I own a weapon and I shoot someone, then I'm responsible for shooting that person and I should pay the consequences. Does that answer your question?
Jackalope is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 12:10 PM   #158
Jeeper
 
txsmokeater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Deer Park, TX
Posts: 86
So sorry you feel my argument is worthless. As far as the baseball bat reference, I took it from a local radio show I was listening to shortly after the CT incident, I'm so sorry I didn't go and do all the research to back HIM up. Thank you for taking the time to do this for me as I appreciate it greatly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TeleMark View Post
Since people on both sides are quoting things with no basis in reality, I thought I'd look into the claim above. Even on its face, it seems completely impossible. Other than in the early 80's movie "The Warriors," I can't remember any roving gangs of bat-wielding miscreants, and unless post-game World Series hostilities break out, I don't see bats being a huge problem.


Homicides by Weapon Type


Handgun Other gun Knife Blunt object Other weapon

1982 9,137 3,501 4,383 1,032 2,957
1983 8,472 2,794 4,214 1,098 2,731
1984 8,183 2,835 3,956 1,090 2,626
1985 8,165 2,973 3,996 1,051 2,794
1986 9,054 3,126 4,235 1,176 3,018
1987 8,781 3,094 4,076 1,169 2,980
1988 9,375 3,162 3,978 1,296 2,869
1989 10,225 3,197 3,923 1,279 2,877
1990 11,677 3,395 4,077 1,254 3,037
1991 13,101 3,277 3,909 1,252 3,161
1992 13,158 3,043 3,447 1,088 3,024
1993 13,981 3,094 3,140 1,082 3,233
1994 13,496 2,840 2,960 963 3,071
1995 12,050 2,679 2,731 981 3,169
1996 10,731 2,533 2,691 917 2,777
1997 9,705 2,631 2,363 833 2,678
1998 8,844 2,168 2,257 896 2,805
1999 7,943 2,174 2,042 902 2,461
2000 7,985 2,218 2,099 727 2,556
2001 7,900 2,239 2,090 776 3,032
2002 8,286 2,538 2,018 773 2,588
2003 8,830 2,223 2,085 745 2,645
2004 8,304 2,357 2,133 759 2,595
2005 8,478 2,868 2,147 671 2,528

Sorry I don't have anything more recent, but unless bat violence has skyrocketed, it doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm guessing this BS talking point is propagated because of a goofy article "written" in 2020 (in a gun-free world) when, because guns are illegal, criminals turn to bats.

Regardless of your side of the argument, using false "facts" to back up your argument doesn't help and only makes people regard the remainder of your argument as worthless.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: Trends in homicides by weapon type table
txsmokeater is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:00 PM   #159
Jeeper
 
Jackalope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
No argument, when bolstered by facts, or at least what one genuinely believes to be facts, is "worthless". Discussion of these views, sharing of ideas, trying to come to agreement is essential in a republic.

However, before debating on whether more people died by a gun or a baseball bat, you must first define an objective. What are we trying to accomplish here? If it's simply less death, then why the hell do we allow people to drive automobiles? We lose around 35,000 people on our highways each and every year; far more than any gunman or terrorist. Or, if the objective is to stop any malicious loss of life, then why don't we ban guns, knives, baseball bats, vases, crowbars, tire irons, fertilizer, fuel oil, airplanes and box cutters? Why just guns? Why are they singled out? Is it because they're a lot scarier looking than a bag of fertilizer?
Jackalope is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:07 PM   #160
Jeeper
 
TeleMark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 81
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by txsmokeater View Post
So sorry you feel my argument is worthless. As far as the baseball bat reference, I took it from a local radio show I was listening to shortly after the CT incident, I'm so sorry I didn't go and do all the research to back HIM up. Thank you for taking the time to do this for me as I appreciate it greatly.
And thank you for missing my point entirely.

You made a statement that more people are killed with baseball bats than with guns, a claim which, on its face, seems to be pretty far out there. You then use this claim to make the statement that since baseball bats are not considered "dangerous," banning guns is a bad idea.

My point is, people on both sides of the argument are grabbing onto whatever they think supports their position.

If I said that I read somewhere that gun owners are more likely to intentionally kick puppies at a 73% higher frequency than non gun owners, and I was using this argument to state that guns lead to more injured puppies, wouldn't you want me to back that up with something?

Passions are high on both sides. How do you think the bat argument is going to sound to someone on the fence about gun control? I'm not talking about hard-core gun haters, but someone who might be convinced by a strong argument. Hyperbole only convinces those who are already on our side.

Quote:
No argument, when bolstered by facts, or at least what one genuinely believes to be facts, is "worthless". Discussion of these views, sharing of ideas, trying to come to agreement is essential in a republic.
So, if I believe that gravity is a myth, it's OK to advocate tossing puppies off a cliff? I understand that this is a HUGE straw man argument, but saying that facts don't matter is a politician's answer. Who decides which "facts" are correct?
__________________
2013 Commando Green JKR purchased 11/19/12
TeleMark is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:10 PM   #161
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 54
Sharing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
I'm going to bed but just going to post this.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi
This is soooo going on facebook!!!
jaov2k is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:13 PM   #162
Jeeper
 
drossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: NW Chicago 'Burbs
Posts: 68
Images: 6
Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country

excerpt:

..... Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy?

Read more: Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
drossman is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:18 PM   #163
Jeeper
 
Jackalope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeleMark View Post


So, if I believe that gravity is a myth, it's OK to advocate tossing puppies off a cliff? I understand that this is a HUGE straw man argument, but saying that facts don't matter is a politician's answer. Who decides which "facts" are correct?
Oh, I think it's okay to post it and to use it to start a discussion. Sure, someone may indeed come along with a fact that disputes yours, but the point here is that you are at least talking about your differences rather than barricaded up behind stone walls throwing rocks at each other. It's a beginning, nothing more, nothing less.
Jackalope is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:22 PM   #164
Jeeper
 
Jackalope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by drossman View Post
Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country

excerpt:

..... Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy?

Read more: Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
I think that's because it's so much easier....so much quicker to get that "feel good" feeling to simply ban guns than to actually tackle the causes like mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, single parent families, poverty, domestic violence, education and God knows what all else. You can't ban getting drunk (well, you can, but that's been tried), so you ban the guns, put a big smile on your face for all the good you did, turn your back and run off before somebody runs over someone else with a Peterbilt.
Jackalope is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:26 PM   #165
Jeeper
 
hwy1rubi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
lol. I'm glad you mentioned more specifically James Madison. Because his version of the 2nd Amendment was written in a way that in todays day and age the language wouldn't even be disputed at all as to what exactly the 2nd was meant to do.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This was how James Madison wrote his version. It is pretty obvious what he thought the 2nd Amendment should mean. That the people should, if necessary for the security of a free country, be able to have a WELL ARMED militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
I believe that a ban on "high capacity clips" and a ban on "scary looking semi auto rifles" is against the Constitution. To an extent yes we should have access to "military weapons". Don't even try and say "oh then I guess you should have tanks and grenades and nukes too huh?" That's retarded. Do I think we should have access to a semi automatic rifle? Absolutely.

You do realize the average AR15 is just a semi auto rifle right?

Do you see that according to you these two statements are a contradiction?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
Drix, interesting rant quoted.

Now I see your point. Let teachers choose if they want to carry so that only a few of our children get killed at school. Sound logic. Arm people that the same folks who want to arm them alledge are underworked, overpaid, union blessed and lazy. Do you also believe you should be able to carry, say, in a police station? Are you deprived then?

I find it humorous, the thought of elementary teachers packing in the lunch room. Y'all must not know any.



Do you know why the 2nd was written? Allow me to quote myself:



And might I add, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Jeffersons draft of the VA Constitution.

Madison was originally opposed to the Bill of Rights, thinking there was no need to enumerate them. It was relunctantly that he wrote 19, 10 of which were used. Even so, I submit:
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46- James Madison

Governour Morris intentionally used verbage to strengthen the federal powers, which the BOR is contradictory to. For instance, he choose "We The People", implying the persons of America make the nation, not the assembly of states as directed by the Constitution. This verbage was used by John Marshall and Lincoln to opress states of their due freedoms. I doubt he wanted individuals to have this type of Liberty, though he did agree to it.

And we could keep on goin...

If you do not like the constitution, fight to amend it or leave. Changing the meaning of what it already in print is insulting to those who established it.

And you can own select fire (fully auto) BECAUSE of the grandfather clause in the Constitution, otherwise Reagan would've taken em away (at the height of fear of invasion, he was some piece of work).

What you fail to understand is that we are discussing the interpretation of the second amendment. You seem to want to have it both ways, it protects your right to own some military style weaponry but limits other forms. My question would be why you can not have it both ways? Either the government has the right to regulate all weapons or non.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
As mentioned the gun show loophole is a trumped up term to define a private sale - no different than VAguntrader.com in legality. All arms bought from FFL dealers must be purchased through state pd BGC methods.

Assault rifles stem from the Sturmgewehr 44, a Nazi built gun which was equipped with a 30rnd mag and fired 500rnds a min. German is a funny language - the direct translation is Storm Rifle, but the context is "to storm a position", one of aggression or assault. So, every rifle the West made to mimic it (starting only 20 years after it, lol) is, at least at heart, an assault rifle. This bothers folks on both sides, because one fails to acknowledge the contextual usage of the term, while the other denies the contextual usage of the term.


Attachment 189544


A national registration program leaves a problem. Are all 280,000,000 - 300,000,000 assumed guns in private hands going to turn themselves in? What if they don't? I would support a registration program, essentially making all firearms class III, if the Reagan Hughes Machine Gun Ban of 1986 is lifted. As long as it stays, I oppose any and every limitation of gun rights or ownership on the federal level. Want to change it? Vote local, and bring 3/4 deciding states with ya to DC.

VA also has laws putting your hind in the hot seat if your firearm is at a crimescene. Consignment sales are an easy way to avoid this, and in private sales many people require a voter ID card or CCW permit, both of which exhibit the legal allowance to own a firearm as a VA resident (long rifle, at least - technicalities on pistols/AFs).

The Brady Campaign alledges you are 22 times more likely to shoot a friend, family member, yourself, or have a loved one shot by your gun simply by keeping it in the home. If true, who in their right mind would vote to arm teachers? Further, teachers have no sovereign immunity, or the doctrine the state cannot infringe rights or commit torts while protecting & serving (basically). Would you see a 65yo teacher loose her lifes savings b/c she missed? How about jail time for her? And as pointed out earlier, teachers - particularly elementary teachers - do not want to carry guns.

VP Biden has been charged with leading the Administrations effort into curbing gun violence nationally. He is likely to make reccomendations next month, and the White House has recieved thousands and thousands of contacts asking for a federal weapons ban.

And fyi, no embassy was attacked in Benghazi. It was a CIA mission house.

Facts can be fun =)

As many as 60% of guns sold in this country are sold at gun shows where many do not require back ground checks.

Most gun owners chose to ignore studies which indicate that guns to not make a home safer but here is another one.

"Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership."

The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost



Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
Imo, weapons designed for concealment should be class III. No small arms should be prohibited of the people. If by limitations, you mean no Katusha rockets, then I think most would agree you can't have em. What of Amonium Nitrate? Red phospherous? That isn't stuff that serves a defensive purpose.

Now to stir the pot, because EVERYONE misses WHY we have the 2nd Amendment.
"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789- Elbridge Gerry
The US is not to have a standing army, rather a militia of the states, which has its own right to store weaponry with the members thereof, preventing a need of a standing army. When called out, these members gather arms and assemble, ready to fight. The arms of the 2nd ARE the militaries weapons. With the existance of the US Army, the 2nd is perverted. One should be done away with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueRidgeYJ View Post
I think it is fairly obvious what he is saying.

All small arms should be available to the people at large. Small arms shoot small boolits and are controlled by 1 person, like pistols, rifles, smgs, select fire rifles(full auto), machine guns, sbr's, shotguns, etc. - though I can't interprit anyone elses belief on current class III items and their regulation, I feel select fire, pistols, short barrel rifles, and other weaponry designed for concealment should be class III (available w/ tax stamp and registration). Currently, select fire, sbr's, silencers, and limited explosives are. My change would increase difficulty of purchasing pistols, but would inherintly transfer a concealed carry license with ownership. I also feel select fire should be manufacturerable, something it is not today.

They are not tanks, antitank rockets, grenades or other explosive devices, nuclear weaponry, long range ballistic missles, rail guns, chemical weaponry, etc. These should be by permit only. But in all seriousness these should be owned by states, not congress.

And his overall point is, despite how many times it is said, there is no difference in this:


Oh and it has certainly been established the 2nd was written with the intent of the actual arms of the militia going home with the soldiers, so there would be no national armory subject to invasion or control. This absolutely and unequivocally means "military type arms". Madisons twist was allowing the religous objecters refuse from serving in any militia, being the champion of religous Liberty he was.
Contradictions, again either the government has to right to regulate all weapons or non.
hwy1rubi is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:33 PM   #166
Jeeper
 
Raiderfan001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Knob Noster, MO
Posts: 7,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi View Post
Do you see that according to you these two statements are a contradiction?





What you fail to understand is that we are discussing the interpretation of the second amendment. You seem to want to have it both ways, it protects your right to own some military style weaponry but limits other forms. My question would be why you can not have it both ways? Either the government has the right to regulate all weapons or non.
Definition of ARM

1
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

>>>>>

Definition of FIREARM

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms
Raiderfan001 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:41 PM   #167
Jeeper
 
hwy1rubi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001 View Post
Definition of ARM

1
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

>>>>>

Definition of FIREARM

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms
What were the arms of the 18th century that citizens and militias could possess?
hwy1rubi is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 01:48 PM   #168
I HAVE A BELLYBUTTON!

WF Supporting Member
 
cavediverjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the grassy knoll...
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi

Do you see that according to you these two statements are a contradiction?

What you fail to understand is that we are discussing the interpretation of the second amendment. You seem to want to have it both ways, it protects your right to own some military style weaponry but limits other forms. My question would be why you can not have it both ways? Either the government has the right to regulate all weapons or non.

As many as 60% of guns sold in this country are sold at gun shows where many do not require back ground checks.

Most gun owners chose to ignore studies which indicate that guns to not make a home safer but here is another one.

"Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership."

The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost

Contradictions, again either the government has to right to regulate all weapons or non.
Where, exactly, are these gun shows that don't require a background check and paperwork? I've been a collecter of arms for many years and have attended a shit-ton of gunshows and they ALL have required a BG check and paperwork. If a private seller sells his/her weapon at a gunshow to a private buyer, then no paperwork is REQUIRED, but doing it at a gunshow is no different that making the same transaction in a living room. I said that the private sale of a firearm doesn't REQUIRE paperwork, but anyone doing these transactions is taking a massive risk if they sell a weapon to someone and it's later used in a crime. So, I'll pose the question again...where are these gunshows you're ATTENDING (not just heard about or read about from our ridiculously liberal media) that don't require background checks and paperwork? And I'd want to research the origin of those numbers showing 60% of guns are sold at gunshows not requiring background checks.
__________________
Americans sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm...

Happiness is a Barrett M82A1 .50 caliber and a target at least a click out........

I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you f**k with me, I'll kill you all.....
cavediverjc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 02:50 PM   #169
Jeeper
 
Drix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Auburn
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediverjc View Post
Where, exactly, are these gun shows that don't require a background check and paperwork? I've been a collecter of arms for many years and have attended a shit-ton of gunshows and they ALL have required a BG check and paperwork. If a private seller sells his/her weapon at a gunshow to a private buyer, then no paperwork is REQUIRED, but doing it at a gunshow is no different that making the same transaction in a living room. I said that the private sale of a firearm doesn't REQUIRE paperwork, but anyone doing these transactions is taking a massive risk if they sell a weapon to someone and it's later used in a crime. So, I'll pose the question again...where are these gunshows you're ATTENDING (not just heard about or read about from our ridiculously liberal media) that don't require background checks and paperwork? And I'd want to research the origin of those numbers showing 60% of guns are sold at gunshows not requiring background checks.
I have only been to a few shows, But everyone I have been to you had to have a Valid CCW/CWP/CPP/ Or you were not buying anything but accessories.
Drix is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 02:54 PM   #170
Jeeper
 
Geno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central California
Posts: 492
Yea, I too would like to see where that 60% figure came from. If there was a transaction without a BG check, where is the record of it at all. I call BS.
Gun Control, really? What do you think would happen if the left got their way and magically, a complete gun ban went into effect today? No more shootings, right? No dummy, you just took away the right for law abiding citizen to purchase firearms. Do you think lunatics, criminals and crazies purchase guns legally? Really?
And I love the "High Capacity Magazine" argument. Anyone could tape two together and have a bunch in their pocket. Changing a clip is really easy and fast.
Geno is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 02:57 PM   #171
Jeeper
 
werubiblue06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 1,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiderfan001
Definition of ARM

1
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

>>>>>

Definition of FIREARM

: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms
Nice...can't get much more clear on what types are meant.
__________________
"We can't all be Washingtons, but we can all be patriots."
~Charles F. Browne
werubiblue06 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 02:59 PM   #172
Jeeper
 
hwy1rubi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavediverjc View Post
Where, exactly, are these gun shows that don't require a background check and paperwork? I've been a collecter of arms for many years and have attended a shit-ton of gunshows and they ALL have required a BG check and paperwork. If a private seller sells his/her weapon at a gunshow to a private buyer, then no paperwork is REQUIRED, but doing it at a gunshow is no different that making the same transaction in a living room. I said that the private sale of a firearm doesn't REQUIRE paperwork, but anyone doing these transactions is taking a massive risk if they sell a weapon to someone and it's later used in a crime. So, I'll pose the question again...where are these gunshows you're ATTENDING (not just heard about or read about from our ridiculously liberal media) that don't require background checks and paperwork? And I'd want to research the origin of those numbers showing 60% of guns are sold at gunshows not requiring background checks.
Edit: As many as 40% are sold without background check.

" 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on a random survey of more than 2,500 households."

"In 1999, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a report on gun shows. Investigators found that a quarter of the vendors were private sellers, not licensed dealers, and reported that "felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows." They said guns from such shows had been used in drug crimes."

PolitiFact | Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check



"Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists. In the summer of 2011, Adam Yahiye Gadah declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also incorrectly claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadah urged Western extremists to follow this path. Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows, although purchases of semi-automatic handguns and extended magazines remain legal without a criminal background check"

"The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Private Gun Sale Loophole Creates Invisible Firearms Market, Prompts Calls For Reform

Gun Show Loophole Still Not Closed - ABC News

http://www.csgv.org/storage/document...un%20shows.pdf

http://www.csgv.org/storage/document...OLE%20MEMO.pdf
hwy1rubi is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:02 PM   #173
Jeeper
 
hwy1rubi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by werubiblue06 View Post
Nice...can't get much more clear on what types are meant.
A "Well armed Militia"?
hwy1rubi is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:03 PM   #174
Jeeper
 
Jackalope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
I think the .... belief, is that while no one really believes that a ban today would accomplish anything immediate, over time it would. No more guns would be sold and over time, the ones we have would become defective, need repair, etc. Plus of course, there's always the sale of ammunition, which would impact the vast majority of gun owners. Even those who do their own self-loading could be restricted by limiting the sale of brass I suppose. In other words, over time, you could probably get everybody.

In the meantime, the sale of fuel oil, gasoline, knives, hatches, the chemicals necessary to make mustard gas, insecticide, the chemicals necessary to make gunpowder, cars and about a bazillion other things that could be used to murder people would remain unhindered.

Wonder how many kids in Connecticut would've died if he'd hijacked a gas truck and drove that into the school?
Jackalope is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:05 PM   #175
Jeeper
 
Full Spool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Calhan, Colorado
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by drossman View Post
62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year
See how the media always tries to make excuses. "crazed nuts".

They aren't crazy, this is in their genes, their nature, their culture.

Crazy? No!!
In the wrong society? Yes!!
Full Spool is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:09 PM   #176
Jeeper
 
hwy1rubi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackalope View Post
I think the .... belief, is that while no one really believes that a ban today would accomplish anything immediate, over time it would. No more guns would be sold and over time, the ones we have would become defective, need repair, etc. Plus of course, there's always the sale of ammunition, which would impact the vast majority of gun owners. Even those who do their own self-loading could be restricted by limiting the sale of brass I suppose. In other words, over time, you could probably get everybody.

In the meantime, the sale of fuel oil, gasoline, knives, hatches, the chemicals necessary to make mustard gas, insecticide, the chemicals necessary to make gunpowder, cars and about a bazillion other things that could be used to murder people would remain unhindered.
I agree, and restricting high round magazines would be simple way to reduce the carnage.
hwy1rubi is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:21 PM   #177
I HAVE A BELLYBUTTON!

WF Supporting Member
 
cavediverjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the grassy knoll...
Posts: 7,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi

Edit: As many as 40% are sold without background check.

" 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on a random survey of more than 2,500 households."

"In 1999, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a report on gun shows. Investigators found that a quarter of the vendors were private sellers, not licensed dealers, and reported that "felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows." They said guns from such shows had been used in drug crimes."

PolitiFact | Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check

"Use of the "Gun Show Loophole" has been advocated by terrorists. In the summer of 2011, Adam Yahiye Gadah declared that "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms." He also incorrectly claimed that, "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card," Gadah urged Western extremists to follow this path. Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows, although purchases of semi-automatic handguns and extended magazines remain legal without a criminal background check"

"The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Private Gun Sale Loophole Creates Invisible Firearms Market, Prompts Calls For Reform

Gun Show Loophole Still Not Closed - ABC News

http://www.csgv.org/storage/document...un%20shows.pdf

http://www.csgv.org/storage/document...OLE%20MEMO.pdf
Wikipedia isn't a credible source. Try writing a professional paper and citing Wikipedia as your source...your peers will have a heyday at your expense. And there is NO loophole. The media is so bass-ackward on that. I'll believe what I've SEEN and what I KNOW, not a junior reporter who hasn't really even attended a gunshow, asks a few people about what they bought, from whom they bought it, and whether there was paperwork.

I know for a fact that those numbers are bull$h!t. If you choose to believe them, so be it, but I'd rather not be led by the blind and ignorant.
__________________
Americans sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm...

Happiness is a Barrett M82A1 .50 caliber and a target at least a click out........

I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes, if you f**k with me, I'll kill you all.....
cavediverjc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:27 PM   #178
Jeeper
 
sparky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Phila
Posts: 1,942
[QUOTE=drossman;3135519]Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country
QUOTE]

While I think Chicago/Illinois gun control laws are ridiculous, the statistics are very misleading. Look at the age breakdown, it is very top-heavy. Almost half are age 17 and 18. They are counting school aged children not school children. There is a difference. Very good possibility the majority of those 17 & 18 year old’s were involved in drugs / gangs.

Bending statistics to your argument is not the best way to win to convince people.

I’ve seen the anti gun side pull the same trick claiming 3000 children are killed by firearms every year. They skew that number by counting as children everybody up to age 21. They also include those serving in the military. I consider children those under puberty. Unfortunately for those pushing the anti-gun agenda, the count becomes rather small.
sparky is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:36 PM   #179
Jeeper
 
Ditchdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Placentia
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwy1rubi

I agree, and restricting high round magazines would be simple way to reduce the carnage.
Hollywood shoot out two gunmen with two fully automatic weapons and drum magazines yet no one but the bad guys died. It's never the weapon it's the type of attack and target. The recent massacre could have been done even with bottles filled with gasoline.
__________________
Bender Bending Rodriguez is my role model.
Ditchdoc is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 12-23-2012, 03:46 PM   #180
Jeeper
 
pengintamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 1,139
There will always be evil people who wish to do harm to others. Ban guns, they'll use a knife, ban knives they'll use a bat. So on and so on. You cannot legislate human nature. Murder is illegal, yet people commit murder. Yes you could argue taking guns away will make it harder. But taking guns away make it harder for innocent people to defend themselfs. I'm a large man, trained in hand to hand, once 5 people tried to jump me leaving a Walmart. Don't know why. Luckily I had my glock on me. I drew down on them and they ran away. Never fired a shot. I truly believe it saved my life having my gun. If I didn't have it Im sure I would of been hospitalized or worse. Guns save lives as well as take them.

__________________
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
pengintamer is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Download our Mobile App

» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC