HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » ...it looked like a canno...

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 02:49 PM

...it looked like a cannon

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by William769 (a host of the General Discussion forum).

17 replies, 1960 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply ...it looked like a cannon (Original post)
madamesilverspurs Jul 2014 OP
Lurks Often Jul 2014 #1
madamesilverspurs Jul 2014 #2
Lurks Often Jul 2014 #3
madamesilverspurs Jul 2014 #7
Lurks Often Jul 2014 #8
redqueen Jul 2014 #5
Lurks Often Jul 2014 #11
redqueen Jul 2014 #13
moriah Jul 2014 #15
Agschmid Jul 2014 #4
Sancho Jul 2014 #6
mbperrin Jul 2014 #9
daleanime Jul 2014 #12
northoftheborder Jul 2014 #14
Oakenshield Jul 2014 #16
daleanime Jul 2014 #10
William769 Jul 2014 #17

Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 03:14 PM

1. The law already covers that

 

If you are convicted of any felony, misdemeanor domestic violence or currently subject to court ordered restraining order for harassing, stalking or threatening your child or intimate partner, you are banned from buying a firearm under Federal law.

The actual form and the complete list of dis-qualifiers is here: https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Some states have further restrictions on top of those listed under Federal law.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 03:22 PM

2. Yes.

But I'm writing from Colorado, where a powerful gun lobby is joined by a group of sheriffs (mine included) in pushing for less regulation. They managed to engineer the recall of two state senators whose "offending infraction" was to support more rigorous application of existing regulations along with reducing the size of legally available magazines (this following the theater shooting in Aurora).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 03:24 PM

3. What "more rigorous application of existing regulations" are you referring to?

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:03 PM

7. Y'know,

I'm just not going to get into a pissing match with you over this.

The story in my post is out of my own personal experience. It is what it is. It is not subject to your approval.

Here ends my participation in this particular "conversation".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:17 PM

8. Lol, I was polite and cited Federal law and you're not going to get into a "pissing match"

 

simply because I asked you to provide some further information?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 03:46 PM

5. You're mistaken.

HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH)ĖThere have been eight domestic violence murders in Connecticut so far in 2014, and now there is a federal effort to close a loophole that allows anyone with a temporary restraining order against them to still be able to keep and purchase guns.
...

http://wtnh.com/2014/06/23/emotional-victim-speaks-to-restrict-access-to-guns-for-domestic-violence-offenders/


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:26 PM

11. And your reading comprehension isn't very good

 

I gave you the ATF form that lists the dis-qualifiers under existing Federal law. You have to be CONVICTED of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence charge or have a the COURT order a restraining order. Simply being arrested is not sufficient.

The law was in place, it is the prosecutor and judge who chose to allow Haskell to plead to lesser charges and modify the existing court order, respectively, that failed to protect his victims.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:30 PM

13. I like how you pretend that somehow makes your claim valid. The FACT is

These men are getting guns and murdering women and children.

Nothing to say about the loophole in CT, either. Of course.

You go right ahead and comfort yourself with ineffective laws. And regurgitate them at people who raise this issue.

It seems to be enough for you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:50 PM

15. This does not stop private party sales.

If you cannot admit that the loopholes that allowed me to sell my gun to my sister without having to have a background check ran on her first are the same loopholes that allow criminals to purchase guns and use them on innocent women and children, despite having a history of domestic violence, you are being intellectually dishonest.

No, my sister's not a criminal. But it wouldn't have been the Worst Thing In The World for us to have had to go to a pawn shop and legally register the transfer after her background check passed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 03:50 PM

6. People Control, Not Gun Control



This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70ís, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werenít secured are out of control in our society. As such, hereís what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Iím not debating the legal language, I just think itís the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because itís clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learnerís license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driverís license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:22 PM

9. Thank you.

Very sensible.

Sure would like to see it happen!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:27 PM

12. I could get behind that..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:46 PM

14. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:55 PM

16. I very much like that list of yours.

Thanks for sharing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:24 PM

10. K&fuckingR....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Tue Jul 22, 2014, 04:57 PM

17. Locking.

Please feel free to repost in the following Groups.

Gun Control & RKBA (Group)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

Gun Control Reform Activism (Group)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink