Elections Warren gives details of her gun control plan

No shit Sherlock, but no one knows it's straw purchase at the time of purchase. That's the point.

You don't find out till after and the damage is done.

So it’s still not a legal purchase and the person buying the gun knows it.
 
doesnt seem all that bad other than the assault rifle ban. i can wait a week for a gun. I don't like laws against personal sales or inheriting guns though.
 
So it’s still not a legal purchase and the person buying the gun knows it.

Yeah, but no one else does so that's irrelevant to the problem.

In fact, that is the problem, people are buying guns for bad reasons for other people and we can't do anything to stop it till after the crime takes place.
 
Yeah, but no one else does so that's irrelevant to the problem.

In fact, that is the problem, people are buying guns for bad reasons for other people and we can't do anything to stop it till after the crime takes place.

I feel like Eric Holder and the ATF might disagree.

You remember "Fast and Furious"?
 
There is no "tightening up laws around straw purchases." The whole point is that the buyer appears completely legitimate, you can only punish them after the fact in the current state. The goal would be to make doing it harder in the first place.

How do these laws make it harder to do in the first place tho? I could be wrong, but I don't belive straw purchasers are normally bulk buying as that arouses too much suspicion as is.

Normally straw purchases are Pete, with a clean record, getting $600 cash from his buddy Hank, who he knows is a felon, to buy him a $500 gun.

Nothing outlined above stops that, but a much stiffer penalty might better disuade that sort of thing is what I'm saying.
 
How do these laws make it harder to do in the first place tho? I could be wrong, but I don't belive straw purchasers are normally bulk buying as that arouses too much suspicion as is.

Normally straw purchases are Pete, with a clean record, getting $600 cash from his buddy Hank, who he knows is a felon, to buy him a $500 gun.

Nothing outlined above stops that, but a much stiffer penalty might better disuade that sort of thing is what I'm saying.

I'm not saying these proposals are perfect, just arguing the general point. The current state obviously sucks and we need to do better.

The penalties for straw purchases are already quite steep, that's not the issue. Straw purchasing in general just needs to be made a less attractive option from a convenience perspective.

From that perspective and what's proposed here, putting mandatory wait times for new purchases, especially new buyers, would take away that convenience of getting a weapon right now for a specific crime.
 
Agree:
Require state or federal liscense to purchase firearm (provided that license is free)
Ban bulk gun purchases (doesn't say how many is considered bulk) would be restricted
Allow manufacturers to be sued in civil courts (can't they already?)
100 million a year for gun violence research
100 million a year for gun violence intervention programs

Disagree:
7 day waiting period on all guns
21 years old to purchase any guns or ammo
Ban similar to 2004 assault weapon ban would be re implemented

Waiting periods for lawful gun owners are stupid... you never know when you'll be put in a situation that requires a gun to protect yourself, and those who didn't plan ahead shouldn't be put in danger needlessly because of it.

A 21yo is a lawful adult, and hence cannot be denied a constitutional right. If we want to redefine an adult to 21 then we would have to raise the military age to 21 as well or admit to ourselves that we use child soldiers.

Banning assault weapons is also anti-constitutional--the constitution is about personal and national defense, not hunting, so it's ridiculous to ban the only guns designed with that purpose in mind? A handgun ban would be more acceptable, as handguns aren't really needed for defending freedom.
 

What part don't you understand, fuckface?

Yeah, but no one else does so that's irrelevant to the problem.

In fact, that is the problem, people are buying guns for bad reasons for other people and we can't do anything to stop it till after the crime takes place.

Eric Holder and the ATF allowed a bunch of straw men transfers to take place under FnF and good men were killed. Your fuckin boy did nothing. Literally nothing. You just said we "can't do anything to stop it". Yeah. Actually you can. You can actually prevent and/or prosecute those "paper crimes".
 
20041022-035212-pic-95997802.jpg
 
What part don't you understand, fuckface?



Eric Holder and the ATF allowed a bunch of straw men transfers to take place under FnF and good men were killed. Your fuckin boy did nothing. Literally nothing. You just said we "can't do anything to stop it". Yeah. Actually you can. You can actually prevent and/or prosecute those "paper crimes".
{<huh}

Also you probably shouldn't flame like that while making blatantly racist arguments when the mod is around, right @panamaican?
 
Black men specifically.

Or is that racist to point out?
Well, it's disingenuous. As in not true and not genuinely argued. But that question wasn't forward genuinely, so it's not I expect any intellectual consistency.

The identity group that commits the most killing is "men". If you want to say "black men", you're shrinking the identity group from the group that does the "most killing" to the "racial" subsection of the group. Now, if you're going to try and salvage that low level trolling work, we might as well shrink the group to the most singularly identifiable group? So, "men in the municipality with the most homicides" - that would be men in St. Louis, MO.

Would you agree with "Men in St. Louis, MO" or does it have to include a racial qualifier?
 
Not a fan of gun manufacturers being sued in civil courts. Gun control is not a massive issue for me, I'm generally against it, but the lawsuits are a big red flag for me.
 
No licensing EVER for the expression of a Constitutionally protected, God given right. What's next, a free speech license?

This whole list will do no good and only make things more difficult for lawful gun owners. Add in 200 million in essentially wasteful spending (like we don't already know what causes gun violence) because who in DC doesn't love some free money to blow?
 
*Require state or federal liscense to purchase firearm
Private transactions between two individuals of a legal product is the business of those two individuals, no one else.

*7 day waiting period on all guns
A right delayed is a right denied.

*21 years old to purchase any guns or ammo
Once you've joined the age of majority, their's no logical reason to prevent your purchase of a firearm. This only serve to ease the anxieties of others. That's an insufficient reason to restrict someone's liberty.

*Ban similar to 2004 assault weapon ban would be re implemented
I simply won't be participating in any registries or "buy back" (confiscation) efforts. It's no one's business but my own if I own guns, how many, what kind, or even where they are.

*bulk gun purchases (doesn't say how many is considered bulk) would be restricted
To a Democratic lawmaker, any amount of guns purchased over 1 per year is a "bulk gun purchase" .

*Allow manufacturers to be sued in civil courts
This would pave the way for those who seek complete civilian disarmament to simply sue every gun manufacturer one by one.

*100 million a year for gun violence research
*100 million a year for gun violence intervention programs
$200 million in waisted tax money that will be spread around to Democratic party loyalists.

Hard pass.
 
Honestly don't like the idea of 18 year olds voting. You barely have any experience in life at that point.

Lets also limit voting for seniors too while we’re at it! Over 75 - no vote, you’re done. You had a good run. You’re now soaking up SS contributions and taxes from youthful generations. 70-75 you need to pass an evaluation. People start losing it around there.
 
Private transactions between two individuals of a legal product is the business of those two individuals, no one else.

I’m pretty sure some states already regulate private sales so this issue has already been hashed out in places. I can’t find and indication that it went to the SC but could be wrong.
 
*Allow manufacturers to be sued in civil courts

I have an issue with this one. At this point, McDonald's and Coke could be sued for making people fat, pretty much taking all responsibility out of the hands of the individual.

And there's nothing about a mental health system setup to where if you've been on meds, it pops up in the database. Mental health should factor in, IMO. If being a felon excludes one, then taking mind altering medication for any kind of mental problem should, as well IMO.



Car manufacturers could be sued too for people dying in car accidents due to drivers using cars irresponsibly.. so much insane nonsense when it comes to what these idiots want to do with a constitutional right..
 
Back
Top