New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers

[LastStand]

Wishing that they would no longer exist seems to be a pretty low opinion to me. At least it would be if we were talking about any other demographic.

 

[Inisfallen]

The sensible reason is that it is requiring a background check for private firearms sales would be unenforceable due to the lack of a national firearm registry and the impossibility of creating one.

We’re the nation that emerged as the predominant world power after the Second Word War. We rebuilt Europe and Japan. We held the Soviet Union in check. We went to the moon. It’s really disappointing to hear Americans say “that’s impossible,” whether we’re talking about gun regulation, or health care, or anything else. Seems like we’ve lost the spirit that made America great.

We can do it. Time to get started.

 

[Guinness]

It’s really disappointing to hear Americans say “that’s impossible,” whether we’re talking about gun regulation

“Gun regulation” isn’t impossible. We already have numerous gun regulations in existence. What is impossible is creating an accurate and reliable national gun registry which is a necessary prerequisite for enforcing background checks on private transfers of firearms.

As an aside, mass shootings like we have now never almost never happened when you could buy firearms through the mail.

 

[LastStand]

I assume gun owners are law-abiding, good people. If, as you say, gun owners really are so violent they’ll start gunning down people who don’t share their political opinions that’s all the more reason to take their guns away.

Weird, I never said that. You are perfectly free to have all the wishes to ban guns that you want to. When you start to act on those wishes and send armed enforcement after me, then I will take appropriate measures to safeguard my rights. As you previously noted, possession of weapons makes the difference between free men and slaves or 2nd class subjects.

Are we writing fan fiction now or something?

Just talking about one possible future out the many available to us and pointing out why gun-grabbers will have trouble taking guns away from people.

Strictly speaking, fan fiction focuses on fiction written within a fictional universe established by another author.

 

[LastStand]

I hear the American Left talk about the need for compromise and sensible gun policy all the time. To me, compromise means that both sides get some things and give up others. What concessions would you be willing to offer?

 

[Inisfallen]

I hear the American Left talk about the need for compromise and sensible gun policy all the time. To me, compromise means that both sides get some things and give up others. What concessions would you be willing to offer?

Am I a representative of the “American Left” (whatever that means to you)?

I, and others, are advocating sensible regulation of firearm ownership. I would like to have gun owners be part of the process. I don’t believe we are obligated to concede anything, since there’s not much left to concede, given the minimal state of gun regulation in this country.

We’re just asking that gun owners recognize than, given the fact that tens of thousands of people die each year in this country from gunshots, something is seriously wrong.

But, you know, we’re going to get there with or without you. Wouldn’t it be better for gun rights advocates to be part of the process, rather than just shouting “NO!” at every single proposal made?

 

[LastStand]

Am I a representative of the “American Left” (whatever that means to you)?

You do use similar talking points.

I, and others, are advocating sensible regulation of firearm ownership. I would like to have gun owners be part of the process. I don’t believe we are obligated to concede anything, since there’s not much left to concede, given the minimal state of gun regulation in this country.

We’re just asking that gun owners recognize than, given the fact that tens of thousands of people die each year in this country from gunshots, something is seriously wrong.

But, you know, we’re going to get there with or without you. Wouldn’t it be better for gun rights advocates to be part of the process, rather than just shouting “NO!” at every single proposal made?

There is plenty that could be conceded. I do not see the point of going along with the process when you freely admit that you will just rewrite the rules while disregarding anyone with a different opinion. It seems that collaboration would only make you feel better and offer moral legitimacy to whatever anti-gun schemes you have cooked up.

You should have just left your first post up. It was far more candid.

For all the talk about democracy being built on consensus and the will of the people, it seems that most of the proponents only want the consensus of 50.1% and the other 49.9% of the population can whistle Dixie for all they care.

 

[Inisfallen]

There is plenty that could be conceded.

Like what? Should we concede the right to own fully automatic weapons? Bump stocks? Massive quantities of firearms? Should we abandon background checks (such as they are) and let anyone possess a firearm, regardless of criminal history or proven mental illness?

Gun regulation in this country is so lax there’s nothing left to concede.

As I said above, I have no issue whatsoever with hunting, or the possession of hunting weapons (although I’d like to see a clear definition of such weapons written in to the law), and I believe those who can demonstrate a compelling need to carry a firearm (concealed or otherwise) should be able to obtain a permit to do so. I think a background check for any transfer of ownership of a firearm is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

I really don’t think there’s anything left to concede. We’ve been making concessions to gun owners for decades now. Now it’s your turn.

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen.

There’s no sensible reason for that.

Sure there is. And its been presented on this thread already.

 

[Inisfallen]

Sure there is. And its been presented on this thread already.

I must have missed the presentation of a sensible reason why transfers of ownership in which money does not change hands should be exempt from background checks.

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen . . .

Should we concede the right to own fully automatic weapons? Bump stocks? Massive quantities of firearms?

It is none of my business if people want to own any of these things.

As long as they are good honest law-abiding citizens, it doesn’t matter.

The “fully automatic” issue was a mistake by the Government in the 1930’s. It should have been taken care of lawfully with an amendment to the Constitution if they thought it was that big of an issue.

I personally would not want a full auto. But who am I to judge if someone else does? There is no sin or issue with that (as long as they are law-abiding, safe, non-criminal, etc.).

I just don’t see the issue with it.

Just like it is fine for our military to have these at their disposal too.

Likewise our police (even though typically they do NOT have full auto arms).

 

[LastStand]

Gun regulation became onerous here in the United States during the 20th century. Only recently have members of the gun culture succeeded in rolling back some of more ridiculous ones.

We could start with a universalized concealed carry similar to a driver’s license but on a “shall issue basis”.

There should be no need to demonstrate a “compelling need” as determined by some bureaucrat with personal security to obtain a weapons permit. Self-defense is a human right and human rights do not need permits.

“Massive quantities of firearms”, now that is just a wonderfully subjective term. I imagine that it means very different things to you and me.

Felons, aliens, persons convicted of domestic violence, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, straw purchasers, and those adjudicated criminally insane or involuntarily committed are already prohibited from owning weapons. Selling a firearm to such a person would subject you to severe penalties so the seller has every incentive to conduct a background check, unless he is a criminal selling to another criminal in which case your law would not even slow him down.

Negligent, reckless, and intentional use of firearms is sanctioned under both civil and criminal law.

Many states already have waiting periods in place before a firearm can be purchased along with strict regulation for how firearms may be transported.

That sounds like we already have plenty of sensible regulation to me, and we have not even touched on automatic weapons yet.

Speaking of weapons equipped with bump stocks (which are distinct from automatic weapons) I would be more than happy to give them up in exchange for universal concealed carry.

 

[Inisfallen]

As long as they are good honest law-abiding citizens, it doesn’t matter.

And how would you know that they are “good honest law-abiding citizens” without background checks?

 

[LastStand]

Having personal knowledge of them is one way. I sold a gun to a coworker of mine when we both worked at a security job which required the ability to carry a firearm. A background check would have been redundant.

 

[Inisfallen]

Having personal knowledge of them is one way. I sold a gun to a coworker of mine when we both worked at a security job which required the ability to carry a firearm. A background check would have been redundant.

So “just trust me on this” should be the standard? Sorry, that won’t work.

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen . . .

I must have missed the presentation of a sensible reason why transfers of ownership in which money does not change hands should be exempt from background checks.

Because we ALREADY have laws in place that prevent selling arms to bad guys.

And we ALREADY have laws in place preventing bad guys from purchasing firearms.

So the only thing gained is EXCESSIVE Government snooping.

You will object and say the bad guys can circumvent such a situation. I agree. (By the way. Bad guys circumvent Government background checks too. Don’t they?)

Then get something in place where the good-people are not subjected to any further government intrusion.

Design your laws against the bad guys. Not against the good guys.

 

[LastStand]

That is an acceptable standard in a court of law.

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen . . .

And how would you know that they are “good honest law-abiding citizens” without background checks?

The same way we have been doing it since the inception of the country. Ask them.

If they lie? See above.

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen . . .

So “just trust me on this” should be the standard? Sorry, that won’t work.

Why not? It HAS been working great. Not perfect but great.

.

Someone else could just as easily argue . . .

So “just trust the Government on this” should be the standard? Sorry, that won’t work.

.

But statist ideas default to Government deferral.

Statism.

Leftism.

This is what these arguments amount to when you peel back the proverbial banana.

 

[John24]

Wishing that they would no longer exist seems to be a pretty low opinion to me.

I don’t wish gun owners didn’t exist. I wish their guns were taken away however.

Weird, I never said that. You are perfectly free to have all the wishes to ban guns that you want to. When you start to act on those wishes and send armed enforcement after me, then I will take appropriate measures to safeguard my rights.

If “Civil War 2” refers to the nonviolent protest movement you’re planning then I wish you the best.

What concessions would you be willing to offer?

We already offer tens of thousands of lives a year to the gun cult. We don’t seem to be getting much in return for our sacrifice except some happy gun company executives.

Felons, aliens, persons convicted of domestic violence, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, straw purchasers, and those adjudicated criminally insane or involuntarily committed are already prohibited from owning weapons.

Why do you support this violation of their “human rights”? Pretty bizarre.