Monday, August 24, 2015

That Which Only Lying Gun Rights Fanatics Could Oppose

Local news

Pennsylvania law precludes people with records of felonies, domestic abuse or severe mental illness from owning firearms, which makes good sense and is not controversial. But many state lawmakers who cower before the gun lobby can’t bring themselves to enact a simple mechanism to help enforce the law.

The records of most people who are prohibited from gun ownership would show up in standard background checks conducted by licensed gun dealers. But a foolish exemption in state law allows those very same prospective buyers to avoid background checks if they buy “long guns,” including assault-style, semi-automatic rifles most often used in mass shootings, from private sellers.

Oddly, Pennsylvania law requires background checks for private sales of handguns but not for long guns, one of just six states to do so. 

A bill has been reintroduced in the state Legislature to apply the same standard to both types of weapons, a step that has been taken by 16 states in recent years.

The bill does not add any restrictions regarding ownership. It does not preclude anyone from legally owning a gun.

14 comments:

  1. Your title is a bit confusing. Yes, I do oppose this, and that's the truth. I'm not lying about that. I don't think it should be a serious crime to sell, give, lend, or let handle a non-prohibited person a long gun (or handgun for that matter).

    The bill does not add any restrictions regarding ownership. It does not preclude anyone from legally owning a gun.

    Well, except for all the new crimes it creates which turns people into prohibited persons who could no longer pass a background check.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The article clearly states it's only about prohibited persons.

      Delete
    2. And it creates a whole bunch more prohibited persons as well.

      Delete
    3. BS, TS!
      Same qualifications apply for short, or long gun. So the same people would be qualified, or not. It does not create a new unqualified person, it only applies the same qualifications to a different gun.

      Delete
    4. There is a new crime that gets created by outlawing private sales and loans for long guns. People convicted of this crime, would no longer be qualified. Understand?

      Delete
    5. It creates new prohibited persons? Walk us through that, would you TS? How can a LAW do anything? Aren't free men still free to obey new laws or not?

      Delete
    6. If there weren't a law making it illegal, then you wouldn't be a criminal for doing it.

      Delete
    7. Yes TS, I understand how dishonest, deceptive, and word twisting yopur side is, you gun loons prove it everyday, here, and thanks for that.

      Delete
  2. I have seen this question brought to you before Mike. How can a Law do anything.

    Well, how does it? You liberal types believe laws are the answer but a law is piece of paper and other than that it has no physical barrier or highway. It only provides punishment for those that break the law but it stops nobody from breaking it in the first place. And how do we know this? Look at the people in prison for breaking various laws. There are LOTS of them aren't there. The law got them for breaking laws. The law got them AFTER the fact, not before.

    So if you want more criminals, make new laws to make new criminals. The thing is this, the new laws wont stop those individuals anymore than the old laws did. They wont stop the people intent on doing the crime that the law makers want to stop. The only way to stop, or at least reduce crime is change the behavior of people. The only way to change the behavior of people is thru education. Education is needed from the early years of raising a society thru adulthood. Reinforcing proper behavior is part of education. That's the one thing that's lacking in this country is education and reinforcing proper behavior. You liberal types are the ones that are responsible for todays society. Its your pipe dreams that you think make society more "advanced" now. Instead you have driven this country back 150 years.

    Now, your new law now makes a new crime from actions that were perfectly legal and harmless for generations overnight. A new gotcha law. If its the law makers intention to stop the real criminals, gotcha laws like this should not even be considered. If the law makers intention is to eventually outlaw guns by the reduction of liberties in this country, then gotcha laws like this make the most sense and to hell with the real criminals. If this is the case, then the REAL criminals are the law makers themselves.

    Makes sense to me. You?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you're too young to remember it, but in my lifetime I've seen the seatbelt law transform drivers in a nearly total way. When I was young, before the seatbelt mandatory laws, I never say anyone use one, even though they were in most cars. Today, almost everyone does.

      The same goes for any law. Most people obey, notwithstanding your silly comments about the prison population.

      Delete
  3. Your seatbelt law is a silly comparison. Got a better one?
    Seatbelts were in some cars since the early fifties but not in all. Seatbelts were required by federal law in all cars from 1968 on but cars that were not equipped before then were not equipped tp have them. Then it was left up to the states to enforce the federal equipment law as they saw fit. Seatbelt laws still vary state to state and I see violations of them every day, all day. Even by law enforcement and even they are not exempt.

    Of course you would know this if you lived here in the states. And yes Mike, I am quite a bit older than you and have been driving quite a bit longer than you. And I also know that sometime back you hated car comparisons. Why are you trying to use them now?

    Oh, and another hint. Those cars that weren't equipped, some are still on the road today (I have 6 of them) and it is not illegal to drive them without seatbelts.

    So explain how my comment about the prisons are silly? Where do you put law breakers, Mike? In your living room? Yuk Yuk!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And just another tidbit. The seatbelt "law" didnt magicly transform drivers, education did. Educating drivers happened sometime before mandating the use of seatbelts. The rest just got tired of paying fines.

      And still the seatbelt laws get ignored today and even the law enforcement selectively enforces it.

      And the seatbelt law doesnt fill the prisons either. Seatbelt laws are misdemeanor violations that still occur AFTER the fact. Felonies still occur AFTER the fact.

      So you dodged the question.

      Delete
    2. "I am quite a bit older than you "

      I'm 62. How old are you?

      Your argument that the seat belt law is not a good example of how a law can do good for the society is total bullshit, and I think you know it. I saw another even more impressive example. Here in Italy the helmet law went into effect a few years ago. Before that almost no one wore a helmet especially the riders of those little scooters. Within 6 months almost everyone did. That happened by proper law enforcement, the issuance of tickets and warnings. The result, lives are saved.

      Delete
    3. Depends on what state your in with the helmet law Mike. Or country. As far as the enforcement goes? People still ignore the law and get fined when caught. I mentioned that above didn't I. The law does not prevent illegal activity does it now Mike. Still another failed comparison. The seatbelt law is still a bullshit example and you know it. You have decried auto examples in the past as bad comparisons and your providing the perfect examples of why. In your 62 years you have not been able to learn cogent arguments. Shape up.

      I am 74 years and still wheeling and dealing here in the good old USA while your hiding in Italy.

      My latest purchase is a new Harley, which I ride with NO helmet legally. And I have a great time doing so.

      And your still dodging the question.

      Delete