Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on October 14, 2014, 06:25:28 PM
-
In virtually every state in the country you can purchase a gun without a photo ID
What is the argument we most often hear from Republicans in objection to even the most modest gun legislation?
They say it would create an unfair burden on law abiding citizens AND the criminals would still find a way to get a gun anyway so what is the point?
If you believe that argument then the same exact argument applies to voting. If you were intent of being a fraudulent voter it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake ID (probably easier then getting a real one) and does in fact create a burden on law abiding citizens who would to cast a legitimate vote
Also, we know that gun violence is a REAL problem and we have zero proof that fraudulent voting is a real problem
So how about some consistency from our Republican friends or at least some honesty.
-
talking about the loophole thing? where joe smith can meet john doe in a walmart parking lot and legally purchase 50 rifles from him? as long as they're both private citizens, there is no ID, no background check, no receipt needed either? (?)
it's odd.
-
I'm a gun advocate and I don't even know why/how this is legal or a good idea. That said, I am for voters having to produce a picture ID. I'm assuming this is talking about private gun transactions, I couldn't imagine you could go to a gun shop and buy with no ID.
-
talking about the loophole thing? where joe smith can meet john doe in a walmart parking lot and legally purchase 50 rifles from him? as long as they're both private citizens, there is no ID, no background check, no receipt needed either? (?)
it's odd.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/
As for guns, under federal law, you can buy a gun through a private seller without even showing an ID. And assault weapons have been fair game since the ban on them expired in 2004. Here’s a Department of Justice report (emphasis added):
Individuals who buy guns from an unlicensed private seller in a “secondary market venue” (such as gun shows, flea markets, and Internet sites) are exempt from the requirements of federal law to show identification, complete the Form 4473, and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check.
-
I'm a gun advocate and I don't even know why/how this is legal or a good idea. That said, I am for voters having to produce a picture ID. I'm assuming this is talking about private gun transactions, I couldn't imagine you could go to a gun shop and buy with no ID.
It's a lot more than just producing a picture ID. As I mentioned in another thread we have the example of a WWII Veteran who could not use VA photo ID because it didn't include his address (the guy lived in the same town for the last 40 year). Student ID's aren't acceptable in Texas.
having a photo ID doesn't prevent voter fraud (which is so rare as to be statistically non-existent) but it does in fact (see recent GAO report) reduce turnout of legitimate legal voters by tens of thousands
the part that bugs me is the dishonestly
Some prominent Republicans have admitted the true intent of these laws so why are the rest of us expected to continue pretending it's really to prevent the non-existent voter fraud.
-
Totally besides the point. Republicans control your mind, Fallacyman.
-
I can't imagine there is one person on this site who thinks buying a gun without a photo ID is acceptable. Did you use the word irony correctly?
-
Totally besides the point. Republicans control your mind, Fallacyman.
Professor Logic you're back
Are you finally going to prove your claim of argumentum ad consequentiam or admit you're too fucking stupid to do it
You've had at least a couple of days to figure out the two simple points of the equation
-
I can't imagine there is one person on this site who thinks buying a gun without a photo ID is acceptable. Did you use the word irony correctly?
I'll let you mull that one over Professor
you don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer these days
-
Professor Logic you're back
Are you finally going to prove your claim of argumentum ad consequentiam or admit you're too fucking stupid to do it
You've had at least a couple of days to figure out the two simple points of the equation
I already proved it multiple times. Are you going to stop obsessing over the republicans?
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.
Negative form
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
(P)Passing ID LAWS (Q)ID laws will result in fewer minorities and young people voting
Q: Fewer minorities and young people voting is undesirable
Therefore, (P) ID Laws are bad.
-
there is some voter fraud. didn't affect outcome in 2012 or 2008, but could have in 2000 or 2004.
every voter and gun buyer SHOULD have an ID. Common sense.
YES, there are some people who won't get to vote because they don't have ID. And yes, repubs love it because it's usually dems. But IMO, that's just making excuses for people that refuse to get an ID. Yes, it can be up to $30 or 50 or more, and it sucks, but some things ya just gotta get.
-
I'll let you mull that one over Professor
you don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer these days
Tell me how its ironic?
-
I already proved it multiple times. Are you going to stop obsessing over the republicans?
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.
Negative form
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
(P)Passing ID LAWS (Q)ID laws will result in fewer minorities and young people voting
Q: Fewer minorities and young people voting is undesirable
Therefore, (P) ID Laws are bad.
try again dummy
the only consequence I have ever talked about is disenfranchising legitimate voters
that is "B" or the "negative" or "undesirable consequence
-
Tell me how its ironic?
you figure it out
you still haven't figured out argumentum ad consequentiam so maybe you should finish that one before you take on a new challenge
-
try again dummy
the only consequence I have ever talked about is disenfranchising legitimate voters
that is "B" or the "negative" or "undesirable consequence
Wrong, dummy.
-
you figure it out
you still haven't figured out argumentum ad consequentiam so maybe you should finish that one before you take on a new challenge
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is often an irrelevancy. For instance, ID laws "may" have negative consequences by causing less voter turn out, but these facts have nothing to do with whether ID laws are innately bad.
Just give up. You're an amateur. You knows what ironic? Calling yourself strawman in order to create the image of adhering to logic and repeatedly making numerous logical fallacies. IRONIC..... hahaha
-
Wrong, dummy.
nope
I said that the problem with these laws was that it resulted in disenfranchising legitimate voters
that is the "B" or the negative consequence and it's supposed to be used to prove A is "false"
Why am I surprise that you are so stupid that you were confused from the beginning
-
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is often an irrelevancy. For instance, ID laws "may" have negative consequences by causing less voter turn out, but these facts have nothing to do with whether ID laws are innately bad.
Just give up. You're an amateur. You knows what ironic? Calling yourself strawman in order to create the image of adhering to logic and repeatedly making numerous logical fallacies. IRONIC..... hahaha
I'm still waiting for you to prove your first point
come on Professor it's easy
A: Voter ID laws were created to prevent voter fraud
B: The negative consequence is that is disenfranchises legitimate voters
Therefore "A" must be false
right?
wait that doesn't seem right because we know A is not false
so what we're left with is that you don't have a fucking clue what argumentum ad consequentiam actually means
-
I'm still waiting for you to prove your first point
come on Professor it's easy
A: Voter ID laws were created to prevent voter fraud
B: The negative consequence is that is disenfranchises legitimate voters
Therefore "A" must be false
right?
wait that doesn't seem right because we know A is not false
so what we're left with is that you don't have a fucking clue what argumentum ad consequentiam actually means
Nope. You committed another one. I love it!
Framing fallacy: Posing a question in a misleading way that if accepted, steers the conclusion. Also called "loaded question".
-
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]
-
Nope. You committed another one. I love it!
Framing fallacy: Posing a question in a misleading way that if accepted, steers the conclusion. Also called "loaded question".
from the beginning I've pointed out the consequence of these laws and you've been saying that I can't judge the laws based on their consequences.
Again, B is supposed to prove A is "false" not that A is "bad" as you did in your example
try again
-
from the beginning I've pointed out the consequence of these laws and you've been saying that I can't judge the laws based on their consequences.
Again, B is supposed to prove A is "false" not that A is "bad" as you did in your example
try again
Seriously just pack it in. I should keep track of your fallacy count.
-
If you believe that argument then the same exact argument applies to voting. If you were intent of being a fraudulent voter it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake ID (probably easier then getting a real one) and does in fact create a burden on law abiding citizens who would to cast a legitimate vote
No it doesn't. Cut the bullshit.
-
Seriously just pack it in. I should keep track of your fallacy count.
Hey Dipshit - remember when you copy and pasted this and pretended it was your own words
Again, so what. You need to change your screen name. You abuse logic. I'm going to personally write Ron on this issue.
The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.
remember I even tried to help you out
well if you're going to complain to Ron about my abuse of logic then you might actually want to be able to prove it
fill in the blanks
The argument takes this form:
If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
Therefore, A is false.
So try again or even better admit you can't do it because you apparently haven't got a clue what you're talking about
-
No it doesn't. Cut the bullshit.
The GAO report concluded it does but if you have some other recent report that says it doesn't then I'll be glad to look at it
-
The GAO report concluded it does but if you have some other recent report that says it doesn't then I'll be glad to look at it
Link please.
-
Link please.
here is a story about the report and below that is a link to the report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/gao-voter-id-laws-in-kansas-and-tennessee-dropped-2012-turnout-by-over-100000-votes/
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf
-
I can't imagine there is one person on this site who thinks buying a gun without a photo ID is acceptable. Did you use the word irony correctly?
I find it acceptable for Americans to buy guns without photo ID. Like Straw Man pointed out, they can get fake Id`s anyway and probably easier than a real one. Besides it`s population control, the US is overpopulated anyway.....
-
I find it acceptable for Americans to buy guns without photo ID. Like Straw Man pointed out, they can get fake Id`s anyway and probably easier than a real one. Besides it`s population control, the US is overpopulated anyway.....
and if you also believe that a photo ID should not be a requirement to vote then you have a perfectly consistent point of view
-
and if you also believe that a photo ID should not be a requirement to vote then you have a perfectly consistent point of view
You are correct.
Speaking of consistent points of view, what are your thoughts on background checks, add them to voting, or removing them from firearms purchases?
-
You are correct.
Speaking of consistent points of view, what are your thoughts on background checks, add them to voting, or removing them from firearms purchases?
hahahahahhahahah
-
You are correct.
Speaking of consistent points of view, what are your thoughts on background checks, add them to voting, or removing them from firearms purchases?
we could give voting and gun ownership some parity
so let's start with a national voter registry with a national voter ID card (that will capture everyone over 18 who is eligible to vote) and then we can use that card to create a national gun registry or gun owner registry
-
we could give voting and gun ownership some parity
so let's start with a national voter registry with a national voter ID card (that will capture everyone over 18 who is eligible to vote) and then we can use that card to create a national gun registry or gun owner registry
but, all of those things disenfranchise the poor and minorities, that`s what the ID to vote debate is all about, or so it`s being framed.....
Registering a gun is not part of the topic, it`s the act of voting or purchasing a gun, not the gun itself. Please stay on topic.
So no more back ground checks? or do you add them to voting?
-
but, all of those things disenfranchise the poor and minorities, that`s what the ID to vote debate is all about, or so it`s being framed.....
So no more back ground checks? or do you add them to voting?
I'm saying that we should create a national voting registry with automatic registration and photo ID card when you turn 18
I'm fine with that
how about you ?
-
I'm saying that we should create a national voting registry with automatic registration and ID card when you turn 18
I'm fine with that
how about you ?
Why does a regular ID disenfranchise poor and minority people, but a national registry ID doesn`t? That makes no sense.
Again, background checks for guns and voting or no bC for either? Simple question. If you can`t answer that simple question no reason to continue...
-
Why does a regular ID disenfranchise poor and minority people, but a national registry ID doesn`t? That makes no sense.
Again, background checks for guns and voting or no bC for either? Simple question. If you can`t answer that simple question no reason to continue...
let's create a structure that is not only efficient but also enfranchises everyone
lets expand our democratic participation
I'm sure you're for on board for that
and then we can use that voter photo ID for gun ownership registration, transfer etc...
-
In virtually every state in the country you can purchase a gun without a photo ID
What is the argument we most often hear from Republicans in objection to even the most modest gun legislation?
They say it would create an unfair burden on law abiding citizens AND the criminals would still find a way to get a gun anyway so what is the point?
If you believe that argument then the same exact argument applies to voting. If you were intent of being a fraudulent voter it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake ID (probably easier then getting a real one) and does in fact create a burden on law abiding citizens who would to cast a legitimate vote
Also, we know that gun violence is a REAL problem and we have zero proof that fraudulent voting is a real problem
So how about some consistency from our Republican friends or at least some honesty.
When it comes to Republican and some Democratic politicians, honesty is not in their vocabulary.
-
In virtually every state in the country you can purchase a gun without a photo ID
What is the argument we most often hear from Republicans in objection to even the most modest gun legislation?
They say it would create an unfair burden on law abiding citizens AND the criminals would still find a way to get a gun anyway so what is the point?
If you believe that argument then the same exact argument applies to voting. If you were intent of being a fraudulent voter it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake ID (probably easier then getting a real one) and does in fact create a burden on law abiding citizens who would to cast a legitimate vote
Also, we know that gun violence is a REAL problem and we have zero proof that fraudulent voting is a real problem
So how about some consistency from our Republican friends or at least some honesty.
I dont understand this. Im living in washington and I have to show my fckn passport to pick up the rifle I just bought, and had to get an FFL.
Math not adding up with that graph.
Also, i would think showing ID to purchase a gun is a no brainer.
-
.
-
.
what a ridiculous riflescope to have on that weapon......
-
.
Hi Benny
-
.
I love this. What you have there is your average militia member.
-
I love this. What you have there is your average militia member.
i think hes even more sad, looks like an airsoft 'simulator' to me.
They spend 10s of thousands of dollars on replics and REAL military gear, including optics, visible and IR lasers, quad rails, foregrips, plate csrriers and stictch authentic unit logos, only to round out all that insanity with a gun that shoots plastic BBs.
I mean, they buy legit milirary hardware and real firearms accessories and mpunt them on their plastic pea shooter.
I never understand those guys. Fuck juat volunteer for the real military already.
-
I dont understand this. Im living in washington and I have to show my fckn passport to pick up the rifle I just bought, and had to get an FFL.
Math not adding up with that graph.
Also, i would think showing ID to purchase a gun is a no brainer.
Think harder
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/
As for guns, under federal law, you can buy a gun through a private seller without even showing an ID. And assault weapons have been fair game since the ban on them expired in 2004. Here’s a Department of Justice report (emphasis added):
Individuals who buy guns from an unlicensed private seller in a “secondary market venue” (such as gun shows, flea markets, and Internet sites) are exempt from the requirements of federal law to show identification, complete the Form 4473, and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check.
-
I have over 30 fire arms.....I've had to produce ID every FUCKING TIME. Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Kansas and Missouri. This is bullshit. The guy at the counter takes ur ID and paperwork and does your background check. They write down the ID number for the ATF checks. IF you want to vote you should have ID. I guess there are a lot of blacks and latino's that don't drive, don't cash checks, don't use a credit card, library pharmacy etc etc etc. This is all so Dems can cheat.
-
Think harder
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/
Ok.....unlicensed dealers....what the fuck does that have to do with voting ID. Plus Salon...really..douchbag liberal bullshit at its finest. If you cant get an ID maybe you shouldn't vote.
-
Ok.....unlicensed dealers....what the fuck does that have to do with voting ID. Plus Salon...really..douchbag liberal bullshit at its finest. If you cant get an ID maybe you shouldn't vote.
it shows you can get a gun in this country without a photo ID
gun violence is an actual problem in this country where as voter fraud is so infrequent as to be statistically inconsequential
the only consequential result of requiring a photo ID when voting is to disenfranchise voters
btw - very odd that the pro-gun members of our board seem unaware of the "gun show loophole" (and of course it's not just gun shows)
-
it shows you can get a gun in this country without a photo ID
gun violence is an actual problem in this country where as voter fraud is so infrequent as to be statistically inconsequential
the only consequential result of requiring a photo ID when voting is to disenfranchise voters
btw - very odd that the pro-gun members of our board seem unaware of the "gun show loophole" (and of course it's not just gun shows)
Gun violence is not a problem in this country.
-
Gun violence is not a problem in this country.
it's a much bigger problem than voter fraud and of course with much more dire consequences
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gun_nuts_powerful_new_enemy_how_pediatricians_are_taking_on_the_nra/
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
The U.S. firearms fatality rate among children under 15 years old is nearly 12 times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined, a stunning lapse of core government responsibility.
About 3,000 children and teens die from gun injuries every year. (That exceeds one Sandy Hook Massacre every three days.)
A child or teen dies or is injured every 30 minutes from guns.
According to The New England Journal of Medicine, among children and young people (1 to 24 years old), gun-related injuries caused 6759 deaths nationally. For perspective, that’s twice as many deaths as caused by cancer, five times as many as heart disease, and 15 times as many as infections.
To those fatality numbers, add the 20,000 children rushed to emergency rooms with gun injuries every year.
-
it's a much bigger problem than voter fraud and of course with much more dire consequences
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/gun_nuts_powerful_new_enemy_how_pediatricians_are_taking_on_the_nra/
No its not - we have a problem w ghetto gang bangers and thugs.
-
No its not - we have a problem w ghetto gang bangers and thugs.
sure it's only ghetto gang bangers and thugs
btw - great job making a clam and providing no proof
-
sure it's only ghetto gang bangers and thugs
btw - great job making a clam and providing no proof
Yes it is - take away the crimes and murders committed by ghetto skells and thugs and there is no problem at all.
-
Yes it is - take away the crimes and murders committed by ghetto skells and thugs and there is no problem at all.
You mean to tell me that when you take the total number of legal gun owners in the United States and you compare that number to the total number of gun deaths and gun crimes, you find the number of legal gun owners committing crimes with a gun is very low?
-
it shows you can get a gun in this country without a photo ID
gun violence is an actual problem in this country where as voter fraud is so infrequent as to be statistically inconsequential
the only consequential result of requiring a photo ID when voting is to disenfranchise voters
btw - very odd that the pro-gun members of our board seem unaware of the "gun show loophole" (and of course it's not just gun shows)
Stuart Smalley is in congress because of it. Voter ID is just another Lib issue to keep blacks and latino's in their voter block. Your to stupid to get an ID so we'll work to make sure you don't need to...who's racist again?
-
Think harder
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/
Lol.
The only way to stop a private seller from selling a firearm to another person without a background check is a registry. And that wont happen. And even if it did, all the firearms in circulation that ARENT registered would still be sold under the table and kept hidden.
Do not support that.
Thats a loophole, not the rule, as purchasing a firearm from dealers require ID.
-
You mean to tell me that when you take the total number of legal gun owners in the United States and you compare that number to the total number of gun deaths and gun crimes, you find the number of legal gun owners committing crimes with a gun is very low?
try comparing the total number of voters to the total number of incidents of fraudulent voters
-
try comparing the total number of voters to the total number of incidents of fraudulent voters
Ask yourself this, if someone commits voter fraud and isn't caught how do you ever know an act of fraud was committed?
-
Ask yourself this, if someone commits voter fraud and isn't caught how do you ever know an act of fraud was committed?
LOL - don't confuse straw w reality
-
In virtually every state in the country you can purchase a gun without a photo ID
What is the argument we most often hear from Republicans in objection to even the most modest gun legislation?
They say it would create an unfair burden on law abiding citizens AND the criminals would still find a way to get a gun anyway so what is the point?
If you believe that argument then the same exact argument applies to voting. If you were intent of being a fraudulent voter it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake ID (probably easier then getting a real one) and does in fact create a burden on law abiding citizens who would to cast a legitimate vote
Also, we know that gun violence is a REAL problem and we have zero proof that fraudulent voting is a real problem
So how about some consistency from our Republican friends or at least some honesty.
You have no clue what the process is for buying a gun. You most certainly do need an ID ::)
-
You have no clue what the process is for buying a gun. You most certainly do need an ID ::)
I do in California where I live but there are many (vast majority) of states where certain kinds of sales do not require a photo ID
I've already posted that info in this thread
-
I do in California where I live but there are many (vast majority) of states where certain kinds of sales do not require a photo ID
I've already posted that info in this thread
yeah, 1 kind, private seller to private seller. Thats it. Good luck stopping that.
-
This really is a dumb comparison. But then again, this is the same person who started a thread calling George Washington a filthy stinking liberal. lol
Gun Buying Guide
By Michael J. Simpson
© Flickr user Magic Robot
I frequently hear from people who want to know how to go about buying a gun. If you are new to gun ownership or gun collecting, you may not know more than what you’ve seen on television. Unfortunately, this information is not always accurate. Even when it is, the information may not be applicable to every state. In any case, here are the things you need to know about buying a gun. If you have a question I haven’t covered, please email me and I will do my best to answer your question.
Who can buy a gun?:
According to federal law an individual may purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun) at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, as long as the purchaser is not any of the following:
Anyone currently under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year in prison
Anyone who has been previously convicted of such a crime
A fugitive
User of any controlled substance
Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective
An illegal alien
Anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from the military
Anyone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship
Anyone who currently has a restraining order against him or her from an intimate partner or child of said partner
Anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor
Do I need a license to own a gun?:
Federal law does not require any sort of licensing to own a gun. In most states and municipalities, a license is not required to own a gun but is required to carry a gun on your person.
Where can I buy a gun?:
The short answer is pretty much anywhere. If you are new to the gun buying process, I recommend buying a gun locally as it is easier and requires fewer steps. Depending upon the type of gun you want, you can buy a gun at a gun shop, gun show, pawn shop, shooting range, sporting goods store, or even Walmart. When possible, I would suggest trying a shooting range first. Not only will there be plenty of knowledgeable staff on hand to answer questions, you may also be able to try out the gun on the range before buying it.
You can also purchase a gun from an individual but if you do, be sure to document the sale carefully for your records.
How do I buy a gun?:
If you are buying a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer (FFL), they will collect the necessary paperwork from you and run the required background check. Unless you are buying a gun from an individual, you will almost certainly be buying it from an FFL. All of the above recommended places to buy a gun are FFLs.
Federal law does not require you to undergo a background check when purchasing a gun from an individual, nor does it require individuals to notify them of a private gun sale. However, the seller is still prohibited from selling a gun to anyone who is otherwise prohibited from buying a gun by federal law.
Can I buy a machine gun?:
You can purchase a machine gun that was built before 1986. Because of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), a private citizen cannot own an assault weapon manufactured during or after that year.
Do I have to register my guns?:
Federal law does not require registering a gun unless it is what is known as an NFA weapon. Such weapons include machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, grenades, and a few others.
When buying a gun from an FFL, of course, there is a record of the sale filed with the ATF.
What about local laws?:
Gun owners and collectors have to consider local laws in addition to federal gun laws. You can check the gun laws in your state here or contact a nearby gun range or gun shop for resources on local laws.
http://weapons.about.com/od/buyingagun/p/Gun-Buying-Guide.htm
-
"However, the seller is still prohibited from selling a gun to anyone who is otherwise prohibited from buying a gun by federal law."
BUT there is no required way to check. All I have to do is get his "word" that he's not a felon, etc. And felons, well, they tend to lie. So while "legally", i'm covered if I sell a truckload of AK-47s to a dude in a prison jump suit who claims he's never been arrested, we all know what's going on.
I don't understand "republicans" that loved Romney's gun-bill-writing ass, that also love the loophole. You're all screwed up lol. You're all over the map.
-
I don't understand people who repeatedly lie about their party affiliation, like this self-professed Republican calling himself a libertarian:
I'm a libertarian.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
-
I don't understand people who repeatedly lie about their party affiliation, like this self-professed Republican calling himself a libertarian:
attack the messenger when I point out a real mess that is your ideology.
Tell us how one can support romney and his anti-gun bill writing self... and still support the loophole. I can see choosing one of these, but BOTH?
The loophole is how criminals get guns, plain and simple. I dont know why you are supporting it. You even bolded the part about the seller not being allowed to sell to someone who fails... but they don't konw... and that's why loopholes are designed, so you can sell a truck load of AR15s to a dude in a prison jump suit who tells you it's just his halloween costume with a nod.
Shaking my head.
-
attack the messenger when I point out a real mess that is your ideology.
Tell us how one can support romney and his anti-gun bill writing self... and still support the loophole. I can see choosing one of these, but BOTH?
The loophole is how criminals get guns, plain and simple. I dont know why you are supporting it. You even bolded the part about the seller not being allowed to sell to someone who fails... but they don't konw... and that's why loopholes are designed, so you can sell a truck load of AR15s to a dude in a prison jump suit who tells you it's just his halloween costume with a nod.
Shaking my head.
Actually you are lying about my ideology. But then again you lie about everything.
Why did you call yourself a libertarian in the quote I posted?
And why did you call yourself a Republican here?
I'm voting republican, unless Palin is the nominee.
-
you spent all afternoon yesterday quoting 8 year old quotes about my political affiliation.
-
you spent all afternoon yesterday quoting 8 year old quotes about my political affiliation.
I spent about 15 minutes posting the same quotes. Do you ever tell the truth?
But you haven't answered the question. Why do you repeatedly misrepresent your political affiliations?
i voted libertarian and will continue to do so.
I am soooo confused.
-
240 leaping in to deflect attacks on the dems yet again.
-
Nobody defends Obama harder with limp wristed "Bush did it" defenses then ol 240...who supposedly didn't vote for Barry. I have no idea why a guy who didn't vote for Obama, defends him so hard.
-
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/66500/Barck-Obama-Head-Cheerleader-66636.jpg)
-
This really is a dumb comparison. But then again, this is the same person who started a thread calling George Washington a filthy stinking liberal. lol
Gun Buying Guide
By Michael J. Simpson
© Flickr user Magic Robot
I frequently hear from people who want to know how to go about buying a gun. If you are new to gun ownership or gun collecting, you may not know more than what you’ve seen on television. Unfortunately, this information is not always accurate. Even when it is, the information may not be applicable to every state. In any case, here are the things you need to know about buying a gun. If you have a question I haven’t covered, please email me and I will do my best to answer your question.
Who can buy a gun?:
According to federal law an individual may purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun) at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, as long as the purchaser is not any of the following:
Anyone currently under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year in prison
Anyone who has been previously convicted of such a crime
A fugitive
User of any controlled substance
Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective
An illegal alien
Anyone who has been dishonorably discharged from the military
Anyone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship
Anyone who currently has a restraining order against him or her from an intimate partner or child of said partner
Anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor
Do I need a license to own a gun?:
Federal law does not require any sort of licensing to own a gun. In most states and municipalities, a license is not required to own a gun but is required to carry a gun on your person.
Where can I buy a gun?:
The short answer is pretty much anywhere. If you are new to the gun buying process, I recommend buying a gun locally as it is easier and requires fewer steps. Depending upon the type of gun you want, you can buy a gun at a gun shop, gun show, pawn shop, shooting range, sporting goods store, or even Walmart. When possible, I would suggest trying a shooting range first. Not only will there be plenty of knowledgeable staff on hand to answer questions, you may also be able to try out the gun on the range before buying it.
You can also purchase a gun from an individual but if you do, be sure to document the sale carefully for your records.
How do I buy a gun?:
If you are buying a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer (FFL), they will collect the necessary paperwork from you and run the required background check. Unless you are buying a gun from an individual, you will almost certainly be buying it from an FFL. All of the above recommended places to buy a gun are FFLs.
Federal law does not require you to undergo a background check when purchasing a gun from an individual, nor does it require individuals to notify them of a private gun sale. However, the seller is still prohibited from selling a gun to anyone who is otherwise prohibited from buying a gun by federal law.
Can I buy a machine gun?:
You can purchase a machine gun that was built before 1986. Because of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), a private citizen cannot own an assault weapon manufactured during or after that year.
Do I have to register my guns?:
Federal law does not require registering a gun unless it is what is known as an NFA weapon. Such weapons include machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, grenades, and a few others.
When buying a gun from an FFL, of course, there is a record of the sale filed with the ATF.
What about local laws?:
Gun owners and collectors have to consider local laws in addition to federal gun laws. You can check the gun laws in your state here or contact a nearby gun range or gun shop for resources on local laws.
http://weapons.about.com/od/buyingagun/p/Gun-Buying-Guide.htm
Thanks for proving my point Bum
No mention of any requirement to show a photo ID when buying from a private party, and no mention at all of gun shows or buying over the internet
Did you notice this part Bum
Federal law does not require you to undergo a background check when purchasing a gun from an individual, nor does it require individuals to notify them of a private gun sale.
I noticed you did bold this part
However, the seller is still prohibited from selling a gun to anyone who is otherwise prohibited from buying a gun by federal law.
how many private party sales do you think comply with this (and again it still requires no photo id) when Federal law does not require notification of the private gun sale ?
Thanks again for helping to prove my point
-
Lol.
The only way to stop a private seller from selling a firearm to another person without a background check is a registry. And that wont happen. And even if it did, all the firearms in circulation that ARENT registered would still be sold under the table and kept hidden.
Do not support that.
Thats a loophole, not the rule, as purchasing a firearm from dealers require ID.
in other words you can buy a gun without providing a photo ID or undergoing any kind of a back ground check and federal law also does not require any notification of the sale
-
My whole family - all Republicans - are voting Obama. i'm driving them to the station later - buying everyone dinner - making it a real family event.
240 did you take the family out for dinner and "make it a real family event" again after Obama won the 2nd term?
-
Now I'm really confused. :-\
-
in other words you can buy a gun without providing a photo ID or undergoing any kind of a back ground check and federal law also does not require any notification of the sale
you give me a good idea on how to stop that without the US gov having a de facto registry by having a record of every gun owned by every individual and ill be all for it.
And you act like ALL gun sales are like thism i hate to break it to you but there will always be a way for people who want to get something to buy it underground from someone without going through the Gov. Period.
-
you give me a good idea on how to stop that without the US gov having a de facto registry by having a record of every gun owned by every individual and ill be all for it.
And you act like ALL gun sales are like thism i hate to break it to you but there will always be a way for people who want to get something to buy it underground from someone without going through the Gov. Period.
We should have a registry for guns and we should require that private party sales be handled through a gun dealer who can do the background checks and other requirements
the private party sales loophole is ridiculous
btw - I never "acted like all gun sales are like this"
I don't even know how you can make such a satement
I merely pointed out that you can get a gun without showing a photo id (or having to undergo a background check) in almost every state in this country
-
We should have a registry for guns and we should require that private party sales be handled through a gun dealer who can do the background checks and other requirements
the private party sales loophole is ridiculous
btw - I never "acted like all gun sales are like this"
I don't even know how you can make such a satement
I merely pointed out that you can get a gun without showing a photo id (or having to undergo a background check) in almost every state in this country
you can do that in literally every state, you find someone with a gun, make a deal, and buy it. You cant stop that.