Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Hugh is pointing out that the situation you described earlier has not actually happened.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

A) Politicians make the law

B) The Obama/FEMA camps statements were from people using the same rhetoric as you just did - first they put in gun control, then they ban guns, then they put gun owners in FEMA camps; none of these things happened, just like reasonable gun control laws would not lead to gun bans in the USA.

C)Anyone can buy a firearm from a private seller, including at gun shows, without requiring a background check or licensing.

On a related note - there’s something seriously wrong with a country’s priorities when kindergarteners learn this rhyme (to the tune of ‘Twinkle Twinkle’) - it’s a "lockdown" song in case a shooter comes to their school.


https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1528400298

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

No I'm talking about the current gun control movement who in some of their uploaded videos had senior spokespeople saying the ultimate goal was a complete ban on firearms though of the three videos i saw with the slipups all have now been taken down. Another aspect of many of the videos is comments are blocked not allowing anyone to correct the mountain of misinformation in the videos, if i hear one more protestor saying "the assault rifle 15 needs to be banned" I'm likely to suffer a concussion from banging my head against a wall.

The so called gun show loophole is being closed as we discuss and i agree it took too long to close that.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I think you will find all those students (and all others) killed and wounded by AR-15s don’t care if it’s an automatic or semi-automatic rifle - they’re more concerned with living than descriptives.

Since an AR-15 can fire up to 120 rounds a minute, I think the difference to the victims is fairly academic.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

What I find so surreal is that no one is trying to drive and emphasise the distinction between guns carried for self-defense or hunting and the military grade ones used in the more horrific mass shootings.

No-one who is rational can justify why they need a long range semi-automatic assault rifle. I mean no-one. Anyone who says that they need (not want) one is deluded and frankly needs help. As semi-automatics can be easily modified to near-full automatics via bump stops it makes the case even more compelling.

If the pro-gun voters in the US cannot understand the distinction between owning hand guns, hunting rifles & shotguns and semi automatics then, frankly, you question whether they should have any guns in the first place.

Maybe the case could be made more strongly if, after each mass shooting where semi-automatics are used, the NRA are subpoenaed before a televised, live, Senate hearing to justify to the American people why they must own such a weapon. The parents of the deceased are then offered an opportunity to cross-examine the NRA representative.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

On the militia, sure - not the guns.

Sure but there isn't a constitutional amendment protecting building regulation, is there?

So okay, let's say you come up with a gun regulation - if it doesn't constitute a ban then constitutionally it should be fine. What do you suggest?

Of course just because it is constitutional doesn't mean the restriction has to be supported...but okay, what are you suggesting?

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

:rofl:

Yeah because it would be crazy to let you have anymore than 2 guns without you bringing your gas bill along to the store

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Err...I think you are making the argument here, as to why the weapon is irrelevant and yes the students would likely care as to who the lunatic is who is trying to kill them.

I mean if you get run over by a drunk driver the last thing you think is "hmmm, that car goes from o to 60 in 10 seconds, if only there was more regulation on cars being able to accelerate at such a pace"

No..you think "why is that maniac on the road?"

Once your injuries heal, you might call for a tough prison sentence, the same way that tough on crime advocates call for lengthy prison terms and mental health is a massive issue in this.

I mean you wouldn't blame the car in a hit and run issue so why blame the use of a gun in a massacre?

---------- Post added at 04:16 ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 ----------

*sigh*

This again?

There is no such thing as the gun show loophole / nothing at all to do with gun shows. Nada, not a thing. Nothing.

If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, irregardless of the location (of said transaction) the FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase the gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on the prospective buyer via the federal NICS database, or confirm that he or she have passed a background check by examining the state-issued concealed carry permit or the government-issued purchase permit of the prospective buyer. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

If an individual purchases a gun across state lines — from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer — the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state.

What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state. This is totally absent any issues of locality - it can happen wherever. So long as their residency (of state) matches.

There is no other law or regulation (nor the apparatus) , or precedent for any kind of background check, for any purpose for any sale of any item anywhere in the US, within the same state. And why should there be - interstate commerce is one thing but within the same state?

The 2012 ACA ruling let Roberts force 4 liberal justices of the SC to rule that there was a narrow definition of the commerce clause (but the ACA stood at the time, under the taxing provision of the IRS, since repealed) so even then, 4 liberal high court judges agreed on a narrow definition of the commerce clause (Scalia's famous line of not being forced to eat broccoli) so even at the federal level this one day might be determined unconstitutional, if appealed. Ironically, he was one of the few conservatives who has said that one day gun issues may yet be regulated.

States are free to do so within their own home state, several do:

For all Firearms:

Background checks for private sales:

These all require a background check by FFL:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Nevada [a]
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont

These all go farther and require a state issued permit for all firearms:

Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey

Maryland and PA require background checks for Handguns and state permits for handguns are required in Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and NC.

I am not sure where this idea of a gun show loophole started but it beggars disbelief - there is no merit / accuracy to the story, at all.

I think that it started after this vote:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...n=1&vote=00097

Word then started to spread that there was a gun show loophole, there is no such thing nor has there ever been. Ever.

Better to use that as a means of awareness / alert people to the issue (especially kids) than not - no?

I see no problem in this.

---------- Post added at 04:18 ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 ----------

What gun show loop hole????

Argh, there is no such thing!!!!!

---------- Post added at 04:26 ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 ----------

Reading through the rest of your post it sounded like standard anti-gun talking points but I had to reply to this specific part - the NRA do not have to justify why anyone must own a gun of any sort. They purely justify and lobby / explain why the government doesn't have any right or ability to infringe upon any American's right to buy such a gun.

(Btw unless it is in a classified session / behind closed doors, all hearings on Congress are available to the public and are televised just FYI.)

So they're now Senators, are they? Congress is not a courtroom (even if they do behave like a super judicial branch) and even in a courtroom you don't have the chance to cross examine unless you are counsel / defense attorney or prosecution.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The following mass shootings are the deadliest to have occurred in modern U.S. history (1949 to present). Only incidents with ten or more fatalities are included

It is clear to anyone with an open mind that Semi-automatic rifles/pistols need to be be made illegal to own for private use and therefore more difficult to obtain.

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

You obviously did not read the post enough to discover was specifically addressing semi/"full" automatic weapons.

Exactly the retort that pro-gun supporters use to close down any debate event when the debate is specific and addressed to a sub-set of gun types

Pure pedantry. The point I made was obvious: parents or relatives of the deceased should be given the opportunity to cross examine, in front of the American people, the Senators and Congressmen *and* the Lobbyists sponsoring them why they block new laws controlling the weapons used to kill their loved ones.

Thoughts and prayers do nothing ..

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Difficult to have a militia without guns... ;)

That guns should be treated like cars, with an addendum - you have to be trained to a certain standard (just like the Armed Forces), you have to be licenced to own one, you are held responsible if someone injures someone (and you didn't mitigate to prevent this), you have to have insurance in case something bad happens, and that they have to be kept securely (the addendum).

---------- Post added at 15:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

Erm, I said "including gun shows", and thirty States still allow the private sale of firearms, including at Gun Shows.

Private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement as Licenced Gun sellers, although this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gun-show-loop/

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Well, you can regulate the entity (the militia) but not the members / their possessions etc. The militia is fair game ; their arsenal is not because it does not belong the militia - it belongs to their members. If the militia owned the guns then fair enough, but it is the members who do. :)

I can get behind a lot of that - I think most, if not all is likely constitutional though I am not 100% sure.

In the UK, for me to own a similar gun (M4 / Uzi .22 etc) I have to go through all the similar procedures and I am fine to do so but am not required to obtain insurance.

In the US though, Insurance may be questionable as it is an inalienable right which you can't be forced to obtain insurance for.

Those same states allow the private sale of guns among anyone of the same state - gun shows are just one specific area / arena that receives no specific benefit nor penalty for gun sales.

Private transactions between two people of the same state are not required to go through any kind of background check in any other circumstance, either.

Yes, absolutely - because they may or do chose not to become a licensed seller.

If it goes interstate / across to the jurisdiction of the federal government then they must get one, irregardless of being a licensed dealer or otherwise. That is a federal statute but state's are not charged with enforcing the statue and some states chose to implement their own checks, others do not.

There is no specific anything to do particularly with "gun shows" though.

The feds cannot come in and expect states to enforce their laws. (Whether it is on guns / sanctuary cities / abortion etc etc).

If states do wish to pass such legislation in their restrictive states, that is their call.

Though usually there are very good reasons not to - cost being one and the burden and so on.

---------- Post added at 02:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 ----------

Either way, bless you.

So you overlooked my point entirely (or just didn't get it). Why focus on the gun instead of the shooter? Why not ban the criminal, not an inanimate object?

(Thanks for telling me though I am well aware of what massacres were perpetrated by whom using what weapon etc, now back to the question at hand...)

Oh, I got that - but why? Why some arbitrary set of specifications in regards to semi automatics? Btw automatic weapons / new purchases of machine guns remain illegal.

You are yet to tell me why the subset or type? You can't pick an arbitrary group of weapons on a whim (for any particular nefarious purpose) and just whimsically decide to ban it for some lackadaisical reason.

Umm...no. Firstly cross takes place in Court, not Congress. Secondly as much as I feel for the parents, they have no place acting as if they are Senators or Congressman. They do not have the right to do any such thing...they do not have the right to ask questions / subpoena or anything else.

I know you feel that they should have the right / opportunity to do as much but instead of thinking up new fantasies of ideas of what rights that they should and should not have, how about you try not to infringe upon the rights that they already have (like the second amendment).

What a crass thing to say. When a loved one has lost a child / brother etc, you claim that their prayers do nothing?

Wow.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

You are resorting to denial again. Of course the criminal is the focus. The type of weapon he/she uses is also the focus. The massacre in Vegas would not have been possible without the legal procurement of the AR-15 and the like. Try killing/injuring 800+ long range from the 32nd floor of a high rise with a shotgun.


Really, arbitrary set?

arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

BTW, bump stops can be used to simulate fully automatic mode for semi-automatic types. Yes, a new law is proposed to ban these but given the wide option on procurement home & abroad plus the near-future option on using 3D printers to make them at home, the ban would be ineffective.

I have not been clear obviously. Let me try again: semi-automatic guns kill large numbers of people quickly and at long range when compared to other gun types. Clear?

Arbitrary, Whim, Lackadaisical, Nefarious: really?


You are absolutely right, let's not infringe on their rights to kill large numbers of people quickly and at long range if they so choose to do so. I mean what is the cost of human life when compared to the pleasure of impersonating Rambo.

It would be wow indeed if thoughts and prayers brought the dead back to life .... but they don't. They are no substitute

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

The hijackers on September 11th killed almost 3000, using planes...are you seriously advocating that the weapon along with the criminal should be banned?

Odd, the terrorists are dead, we still use commercial aviation...see how the system works?

Like Hugh said though reasonable security and safety measures are totally fine, like for example enhanced measures by the TSA / DHS etc...you don't ban the plane though / the entire method of transportation.

So what else are you basing this on, other than some whimsical notion to ban guns?

Bump stocks, not bump stops. A new law is not necessarily needed to stop the proliferation of bump stocks being used as an accelerator for more rapid re-fire - it can be done easily through existing regulation. Also it modifies a gun so there may be a way of stopping the use through the fact that it amends the intellectual property of the manufacturer.

No, people using the semi automatic guns kill large numbers of people at a long range...clear?

(Otherwise they would just have to use different methods which they will anyway if they are so hell bent on killing so many).

Well how about you come up with a serious proposal to combat the issue of massacres instead of pie in the sky weapons ban fantasies.

Eh? You are hardly infringing on their rights - they'll get a gun illegally if they are going to murder so many people. Clearly breaking the law is of no consequence to them.

It is the rest of us who are law abiding citizens that you will end up infringing upon the rights of.

Neither will banning any of the gun(s) that the killer(s) may have used, either - if that is what you are trying to achieve.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Gun control does not equal a gun ban.We control substances and objects that can be used for violence and damage. We do not BAN them. We don't ban cars,planes,knives and other dangerous items. We seek to have control to mitigate their effects on the public when mishandled.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

whimsical: "playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way"

I do not find the notion of banning sales of semi-automatics capable of killing people at long range in the hundreds "whimsical".

Well I tried. Let try a different tack: why do you *need* to own an AR-15? Not want one, need one.