Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Pro Gun Hypocrisy

Embedded image permalink

32 comments:

  1. Do you not see that the left basically flips that and keeps the hypocrisy?


    Also, you're asking for a bit more than an ID being shown (which even the most government distrusting hillbillies I've bought from have asked for to make sure I was a resident of the state since they couldn't legally sell to an out of state person--and yes, they've asked for it EVERY time I did a private purchase). You won't even accept proposals for background checks that don't leave paper trails, insisting on a system that generates such a trail as a de facto database.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many private buys have you made? I really find it hard to believe that a seller would care one way or the other about your being a state resident since no one could check up on it.

      Delete
    2. Three--been to dealers otherwise. Always had the license checked. Been present for many other buys by friends and family. Same deal there.

      It's the one thing they can check up on, so they usually do. Some may be doing it out of conscientiousness, others to make sure they're not selling to an out of state person being used in a LE sting. Either way, in my experience, they check.

      Delete
  2. You should pick memes that are a little more accurate, though I'm guessing there aren't many out there that are correct since the "gun show loophole" while inaccurate, has become a widespread media term.
    And as we've discussed before, someone who wants to engage in a private sale is limited in what they can do to keep from selling to a prohibited person. Private sellers are prohibited from selling to someone they know to be a prohibited person. Yet, there is currently no way available for them to determine if they are prohibited.
    About all a private seller can do is ask for ID to insure the buyer resides in the state and therefor engaging in an interstate sale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean there's no way available to them to determine if the buyer is prohibited? If they're that scrupulous, like every single one in Tennessee who has sold to Simon is, then they could send their prospective buyer to the local FFL guy for a check.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, if they're willing to have the gun logged into his FFL log book, make the buyer pay a fee, and pay a portion of the profit to the FFL for his services, etc. A bunch of aggravation, added cost to the buyer, or lost profit for the seller, and generation of a paper-trail that you want.

      Sorry, but that's not a system that will work. TS has suggested ways to structure the check system so that any seller could access it. Laws have been proposed with similar systems. You've dismissed them all because they didn't result in a paper trail the way making someone go to an FFL and pay them a cut does.

      Delete
    3. A DIY system would create the same exact paper trail. Folks who resist background checks would not all of a sudden go for them under a system like that.

      Delete
    4. There is no 4473, so it's not the same paper trail. But you're still forgetting the cost, and the travel. Taking both those out of the equation will increase how often it is used.

      Delete
    5. Oh, you want a DIY system in which blind calls are made anonymously and directly into the NICS database with no record or proof that it was even done.

      And you wonder why people aren't rushing in to take advantage of that?

      Delete
    6. Mike,

      If you had a law that said that they were supposed to make such a call, you'd have the same incentives that exist for people to show a driver's license and prove they're from in state--some people would do it being conscientious, wanting to make sure the person wasn't a prohibited person. Others would do it to ensure that they weren't selling to a prohibited person who was part of a sting operation. Either motivation would be enough to motivate compliance. Meanwhile, you'd have removed the record keeping of who bought what--an issue that might discourage some from compliance.

      Wouldn't get 100% compliance (you never will with any system) but you would probably get much higher than under this current system.

      Delete
    7. So I guess the record keeping is more important to you than background checks, huh? You'd rather have nothing than DIY checks because you don't want to take record keeping off the table. And I guess we can finally drop the idea that you don't care which way it gets done. You care- your way or no way.

      Delete
    8. In other words we should do the background checks on the honor system? I don't think so. In spite of your experience with the small sample of 3 private buys in Tennessee, I don't think many people would bother to comply if there is no way to check on it. That's the reason for the paperwork and the data collection.

      I know you guys really like car comparisons. When you get you car inspected you put a sticker on display to prove it. Do you think people would bother if yearly inspections were done on the honor system?

      Delete
    9. You seem to like the car comparisons as much or more whenever you find one that suits you. However, addressing the topic you brought up, in Tennessee we don't have yearly inspections--not inspections on an honor system, but straight up no inspections--but we still keep our vehicles in working order. We want good milage, we want the vehicle to last a long time, and we don't want to get the enforcement tickets handed out if cops see you driving a vehicle they can see is in obvious disrepair.

      Back to the gun issue, yeah, my sample size is small, even if you include the sales I've witnessed, but my point was that it's not a straight up honor system. Everyone knows there are sting operations that check to see if people are complying with the law, and that provides a stick. Same stick provided to encourage checking ID's for alcohol purchases--something else not on a straight up honor system but without record keeping.

      Delete
    10. "but we still keep our vehicles in working order. " Are you speaking for ALL car owners? Does no one let their car go, either through procrastination or perhaps due to tight finances?

      Delete
  3. Uh huh. If you draw an equivalency and state it's hypocritical to support one and not the other, then it works both ways. I can't tell you how often I point this out, but the people making these types of statements don't seem to get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's hypocritical is conservative idiots wanting strict controls at the voting station and none at the gun show.

      Delete
    2. Ok, fair enough. Then it is also hypocritical when liberal idiots want strict controls at a gun show and none at the voting station. Or you can say these two things are not alike, but you are the one drawing the comparision.

      Delete
    3. They're not alike. No one wants NO CONTROLS at the voting station. But that's exactly what you more extreme gun guys want at a gun sale.

      Delete
    4. Actually, I see no controls at a polling place to be an interesting idea. If you care enough to vote, you vote. Otherwise, you get what you deserve. But at the very least, if you're name's on the voting rolls, you say, I'm so-and-so and put a checkmark by your name, then vote. Good enough for me.

      Delete
    5. Did you say the names would be on a list at the polling place. No way, man. Lists of names are the first step towards government abuse. Everyone knows that.

      Delete
    6. We could go back to the old blue thumb idea. When you vote, they put blue ink on your thumb. Anyone with a clean theme still gets to vote.

      Delete
    7. First time I've heard that suggested for used here...I like it!

      Delete
  4. Except that I've expressed my opposition to burdens being placed on voting rights. It's so much easier attack a strawman than to disparage the position of a genuine supporter of all rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because you oppose voting rights violations doesn't mean it's a strawman, it exists. If you feel so strongly about those voting rights violations, how come you don't spend everyday advocating against those real violations of rights instead of your false claim of violations of your gun rights? If you were told you could not buy guns on a certain day, or time of day, you would be screaming violation of rights everyday, multiple times a day. Guns are all you care about, to the extent of excusing innocent death.

      Delete
    2. Claiming that guns are all I care about shows you to be either a liar or a fool.

      Delete
    3. It shows neither since gun issues are all you talk about on this site.

      Delete
    4. A manifest lie by Anonymous as Greg has spoken against private prisons, against various violations of other rights by the government, in favor of due process in various contextes, in favor of abortion and gay rights, in favor of the idea of climate change, etc. etc. etc.

      If Mikeb brought up more topics than guns, we'd all talk about more topics than guns more often.

      Delete
  5. "government distrusting hillbillies"
    Did you buy a gun from Greg?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not unless he was shopping in the Nashville area some five or more years ago.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      By your comment, I take it you thought that I meant that in a disparaging way.

      Shows your sad bigotry and ignorance of what these people are like.

      Delete
    3. I guess you missed it, Greg admitted he was a "government distrusting hillbilly" months ago. Try again.

      Delete