Another school shooting

[Benja]

You just suggested confiscation is response to my question, and then wonder why people are worried about confiscation?  I mean, wtf. 

I think the violent reaction some gun owners have to even discussing gun control weirds people out more than anything else.

I think people should have the personal freedom to own a gun, but if you are acting psychotically pumped about owning said guns and are very gun nutty then you kinda scare me and I sorta don't want you to have any guns.

[michigancat]

[nicname]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

[SdK]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

Are there border checkpoints surrounding Colorado?

Come back when you're done with throwing out red herrings.

[SdK]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

So because a state wants to have a rational take on gun control they should have to defend their borders from neighboring states that don't?

[SdK]

Ps. Emo totally thought about my border control comment in the opposite that I meant it.

[nicname]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

So because a state wants to have a rational take on gun control they should have to defend their borders from neighboring states that don't?

They don't have to, but they can if they choose too. That's kind of the point. Choice. A federal law requiring all states to comply with the choice that your hypothetical state has made eliminates all choice from any state that opposes the federal law. You, of course, see no problem with this, because you agree with the hypothetical prevailing thought. You wouldn't be so quick to any federal laws if your thoughts were that of your perceived minority.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of much being handled on the federal level.

[Emo EMAW]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

So because a state wants to have a rational take on gun control they should have to defend their borders from neighboring states that don't?

What's rational for one state isn't rational for every state.

[michigancat]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

So because a state wants to have a rational take on gun control they should have to defend their borders from neighboring states that don't?

They don't have to, but they can if they choose too. That's kind of the point. Choice. A federal law requiring all states to comply with the choice that your hypothetical state has made eliminates all choice from any state that opposes the federal law. You, of course, see no problem with this, because you agree with the hypothetical prevailing thought. You wouldn't be so quick to any federal laws if your thoughts were that of your perceived minority.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of much being handled on the federal level.

Thanks for explaining how federal and state laws work, but a gun registration program has to be federal or it will be completely ineffective.

[SdK]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

So because a state wants to have a rational take on gun control they should have to defend their borders from neighboring states that don't?

They don't have to, but they can if they choose too. That's kind of the point. Choice. A federal law requiring all states to comply with the choice that your hypothetical state has made eliminates all choice from any state that opposes the federal law. You, of course, see no problem with this, because you agree with the hypothetical prevailing thought. You wouldn't be so quick to any federal laws if your thoughts were that of your perceived minority.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of much being handled on the federal level.

Democracy?  Everyone isn't going to be happy with every law.

[Emo EMAW]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

[michigancat]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

Because there is no way of enforcing the FFL process for private sales without registration of the firearm. If you sell to a bad guy without executing the FFL, how would the gun ever be traced back to you?

[Emo EMAW]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

Because there is no way of enforcing the FFL process for private sales without registration of the firearm. If you sell to a bad guy without executing the FFL, how would the gun ever be traced back to you?

The same question applies to guns sold through dealerships today which I understand you don't have a problem with (maybe I'm wrong).

[michigancat]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

Because there is no way of enforcing the FFL process for private sales without registration of the firearm. If you sell to a bad guy without executing the FFL, how would the gun ever be traced back to you?

The same question applies to guns sold through dealerships today which I understand you don't have a problem with (maybe I'm wrong).

uh, yeah. I think that's too lenient.

[SkinnyBenny]

Yup. Also I love when gun nuts respond to school shootings by throwing their hands up and go, "Well? Nothing we can do, I mean everybody's gonna have guns!" . . . And then they offer no actual solutions. Basically I just kinda find it entertaining to watch them accept none of the blame and offer absolutely no solutions. I mean it might even be funny except for the fact that while this is happening, kids keep getting shot in the head.

Registering wouldn't prevent that.  Next.

[nicname]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

So because a state wants to have a rational take on gun control they should have to defend their borders from neighboring states that don't?

They don't have to, but they can if they choose too. That's kind of the point. Choice. A federal law requiring all states to comply with the choice that your hypothetical state has made eliminates all choice from any state that opposes the federal law. You, of course, see no problem with this, because you agree with the hypothetical prevailing thought. You wouldn't be so quick to any federal laws if your thoughts were that of your perceived minority.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of much being handled on the federal level.

Thanks for explaining how federal and state laws work, but a gun registration program has to be federal or it will be completely ineffective.

Then I guess it shouldn't happen at all.

[michigancat]

It has to be federal. Unless states are going to set up border checkpoints.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of much of anything being federal. Setting up border checkpoints or whatever else they feel would be necessary is their choice.

So because a state wants to have a rational take on gun control they should have to defend their borders from neighboring states that don't?

They don't have to, but they can if they choose too. That's kind of the point. Choice. A federal law requiring all states to comply with the choice that your hypothetical state has made eliminates all choice from any state that opposes the federal law. You, of course, see no problem with this, because you agree with the hypothetical prevailing thought. You wouldn't be so quick to any federal laws if your thoughts were that of your perceived minority.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of much being handled on the federal level.

Thanks for explaining how federal and state laws work, but a gun registration program has to be federal or it will be completely ineffective.

Then I guess it shouldn't happen at all.

That's a really stupid way to look at it.

[DQ12]

it's crazy how brainwashed gun people are on this topic. the wild leaps from "registration" to "take away all guns and charge gun owners with crimes" are very  . is this an nra talking point or something?

While I agree with your general point, the charging gun owners with crimes thing (and make all gun owners keep 200million in liability insurance (wtf lol)) was advanced by anti gun folks itt.

[SkinnyBenny]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

Confirmed. Clearly everything is going great and there's no problem with gun violence in America. We should change nothing.

[sonofdaxjones]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

Confirmed. Clearly everything is going great and there's no problem with gun violence in America. We should change nothing.

Chicago has changed lots of things about owning guns, making it a lot harder.  Pretty much hasn't made much of a dent on things there.

Overall, gun violence is on a 20 year downward trend.

[michigancat]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

Confirmed. Clearly everything is going great and there's no problem with gun violence in America. We should change nothing.

Chicago has changed lots of things about owning guns, making it a lot harder.  Pretty much hasn't made much of a dent on things there.

Overall, gun violence is on a 20 year downward trend.

local or state efforts to control or even track guns will always be pretty much worthless in this country.

[bubbles4ksu]

it's crazy how brainwashed gun people are on this topic. the wild leaps from "registration" to "take away all guns and charge gun owners with crimes" are very  . is this an nra talking point or something?

While I agree with your general point, the charging gun owners with crimes thing (and make all gun owners keep 200million in liability insurance (wtf lol)) was advanced by anti gun folks itt.

they don't get charged for merely being a gun owner.

[steve dave]

it's crazy how brainwashed gun people are on this topic. the wild leaps from "registration" to "take away all guns and charge gun owners with crimes" are very  . is this an nra talking point or something?

While I agree with your general point, the charging gun owners with crimes thing (and make all gun owners keep 200million in liability insurance (wtf lol)) was advanced by anti gun folks itt.

they don't get charged for merely being a gun owner.

they're never gonna take dlew's guns

[Emo EMAW]

Still unsure why @michigancat thinks the FFL process for dealerships to sell guns isn't good enough for private sales?

Confirmed. Clearly everything is going great and there's no problem with gun violence in America. We should change nothing.

That's not what I said and you know it.  I was speaking specific to the FFL process.  Quit making these straw man arguments.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

it's crazy how brainwashed gun people are on this topic. the wild leaps from "registration" to "take away all guns and charge gun owners with crimes" are very  . is this an nra talking point or something?

While I agree with your general point, the charging gun owners with crimes thing (and make all gun owners keep 200million in liability insurance (wtf lol)) was advanced by anti gun folks itt.

they don't get charged for merely being a gun owner.

they're never gonna take dlew's guns

I'd like to see them try.  Would take a small army IMO.