Brady Campaign has high expectations.

[mikem317]

Could someone explain to me what the purpose of a 5 day waiting period is for?

Idea: To prevent off-the-cuff, emotional violence.

Real impact: Prevents battered women in disastrous relationships from obtaining tools to defend themselves from their abusive boyfriends and husbands in a timely manner.

 

[Squished]

Idea: To prevent off-the-cuff, emotional violence.

Real impact: Prevents battered women in disastrous relationships from obtaining tools to defend themselves from their abusive boyfriends and husbands in a timely manner.

Wouldn't just you irritate someone more by making them wait thus create an even worse situation? Sounds like it's just delaying the inevitable if that's what the persons intention was for. Today, five days from now, 1 month from now, what difference does it make? Seems like more of a headache for the dealers to have to tag it and put it on the shelf. Waste of time, money, storage space, etc.

 

[Bill Nance]

Idea: To prevent off-the-cuff, emotional violence.

Real impact: Prevents battered women in disastrous relationships from obtaining tools to defend themselves from their abusive boyfriends and husbands in a timely manner.

I agree. The idea seems reasonable enough until you realize that it's extremely rare that a lawfully owned firearm is used in a crime.

The only good thing I can say about this one (sort of) is that at least it's not entirely crazy on it's face. But ya, the real impact isn't what the proponents think it will be.

 

[mikem317]

Wouldn't just you irritate someone more by making them wait thus create an even worse situation? Sounds like it's just delaying the inevitable if that's what the persons intention was for. Today, five days from now, 1 month from now, what difference does it make? Seems like more of a headache for the dealers to have to tag it and put it on the shelf. Waste of time, money, storage space, etc.

Probably. I don't support firearm waiting periods. There's statistical evidence that suggests that mandatory waiting periods increase violent crime rates, as opposed to suppress these rates.

And yes, there's an obvious business impact on inventory.

 

[LoginName]

I agree. The idea seems reasonable enough until you realize that it's extremely rare that a lawfully owned firearm is used in a crime.

The only good thing I can say about this one (sort of) is that at least it's not entirely crazy on it's face. But ya, the real impact isn't what the proponents think it will be.

It's even more ridiculous if the person already owns a gun or has multiple firearms.

Why wait 5 days for a potential murder weapon when you already have the means at hand?

 

[Bill Nance]

Wouldn't just you irritate someone more by making them wait thus create an even worse situation? Sounds like it's just delaying the inevitable if that's what the persons intention was for. Today, five days from now, 1 month from now, what difference does it make? Seems like more of a headache for the dealers to have to tag it and put it on the shelf. Waste of time, money, storage space, etc.

No. The idea was to prevent someone going down to the corner gunshop, buying gun and coming home to blast their next-door neighbor or partner in a fit of rage. The waiting period is meant to prevent this, not to prevent a determined person from committing murder. Even if they grabbed all guns this couldn't be prevented. The less insane antis at least understand the concept. The waiting period was meant to give people a chance to cool down. Though it's prety silly to think that getting in the car, finding a gun, filling out the paperwork and getting home wouldn't be enough time for 99% of ragers to calm down.

As has been stated, the reality is not what the antis think it is. In fact, the number of times the scenario above has played out is so tiny it's not worth making laws for.

All it actually does is prevent someone with a reasonable fear of near-term violence from defending themselves.

 

[Squished]

Let me attempt to illustrate an answer to that:

Let's say that you live with your wife, and you are just a generally awful person. You drink heavily, have no patience, and were too cheap to buy a punching bag, so you just use your wife.

Jesus, that's it. I knew my blinds weren't that great, but stop looking in my windows!!!


Kidding, I'm single. I see your point though. It just seems to do more harm than good, the waiting period that is. Maybe if it's your first firearm, but if you already own one what difference does it make? If they do hold you back 5 days to buy that new one, what's to stop you from buying ammo from your current one and doing the deed?

You can commit a violent act withe a knife or even a baseball bat, maybe there should be waiting periods on those too?

 

[Squished]

Exactly. Waiting periods will only stop the legal sale of a firearm to an individual who has never committed a crime before and who, at that very moment, has malicious intentions.

So basically, if someone who is not yet a criminal intends to become one very shortly, and they choose to legally purchase a firearm to commit said act, the waiting period will work until said individual uses another tool (or none).

In effect, it doesn't stop any crime from being committed, which is the point. Waiting periods don't work.

Ok got it. So why are they still proposing it if it's proven it doesn't work? Anti's just don't make sense to me, sorry.

 

[LoginName]

Ok got it. So why are they still proposing it if it's proven it doesn't work? Anti's just don't make sense to me, sorry.

There's a method to their madness.

There's plenty of gun control measures that they know will have little or no effect on crime, but they propose them anyways because it ties up our and the NRA's resources trying to prevent these assanine measures from passing.

Think how much simpler and less time consuming it would be for pro RKBA advocates if they had to concentrate on 3-4 gun control bills at a time instead of a dozen or more?

 

[Bill Nance]

Ok got it. So why are they still proposing it if it's proven it doesn't work? Anti's just don't make sense to me, sorry.

Squished:
There's a couple of things going on with gun control.

First there's the plain 'ole fear factor. People who nothing of firearms or the people who use them, and don't understand the 2A purpose of making a government at least think long and hard before attempting to impose tyranny, see guns as merely destructive dangerous devices of use only to law enforcement or criminals. It's ignorance and fear, not malicious intent.
Add to this the over-blowing of every gun related incident and under/non reporting of guns used in self defense, and they want to ban or reduce gun ownership.

On the other hand, the Brady people and their ilk just want guns gone. Probably also from fear, but also as a desire to control: Since they don't want one, and fear them, no one else should be able to have guns. Bottom line is they don't trust you.

The die-hard antis lie through their teeth about the issues. Their BS makes it to the news as "fact," convinces a whole bunch of other gun-phobes (Hoplophobes) how dangerous guns are, and we get the AWB, Mass. gun licensing, etc.

The only way to combat this is to talk to everyone you know about firearms, as well as the benefits (protection, protection from tyranny, culture, etc).

Get some facts on the actual statistics and spread the word. -And don't go over the top. If you get yourself dismissed as a nut, you've done more harm than good.

-Just my opinion.

 

[Rob]

You answered your own question. Gun control advocates do the opposite of what's logical. That's why they banned:....

- Bayonet lugs. OH NO. NOT A f***ING BAYONET ATTACHMENT POINT.....

I could go on for hours...

I love your rationales, but this one is my absolute favorite.

The most disturbing thing I can think of is after a fierce gun battle on the streets (you know we've all been in them), and after everyone has expended their ammunition (damn, hate when that happens), the survivors rush in with bayonetts. It'll be like WW1 all over again.

I'm sooooo scared of bayonetts. They haunt my dreams. Pleeeee(insert sheep bleating)eeeease don't stab me with your weapon mounted knife. Knives are scary.

 

[Bob P]

You answered your own question. Gun control advocates do the opposite of what's logical. That's why they banned:

- Adjustable stocks. It's bad for someone to be able to comfortably and properly (and therefore safely) shoot a long arm.

- Suppressors. It's bad for someone to be able to use a firearm legally inside their own home and not by deaf afterwards.

- Flash suppressors. Who needs to see, anyways?

- Bayonet lugs. OH NO. NOT A f***ING BAYONET ATTACHMENT POINT.

- Pistol grips. Who needs to control their firearm?

- Heat shield. Maybe you don't, but I love burning my hands. It's lots of fun.

I could go on for hours...

Actually, they have their own form of twisted logic about it.

- Adj stock - makes the rifle smaller and (allegedly) concealable. (Riiight. I'm going to CC an M4. Sure I am).

- Suppressors - well hell, that's an assasin's tool!

- The rest? They look scary. Period. Their logic is the scary looking guns will be attractive to Columbine type nut jobs who will use them to commit heinous acts. I'm dead serious, that's their logic behind that. Remove the scary features and it will no longer incite morons to pretend they're Rambo. Practical considerations aside.

Pure and simple, they're afraid that military looking guns will be attractive to criminals and nutters simply because of the cool-factor AND they're worried that anyone who THINKS military looking guns are cool (meaning you and I) ARE nutters just waiting to go off.

 

[ateamrob]

- Adjustable stocks. It's bad for someone to be able to comfortably and properly (and therefore safely) shoot a long arm.

- Suppressors. It's bad for someone to be able to use a firearm legally inside their own home and not by deaf afterwards.

- Flash suppressors. Who needs to see, anyways?

- Bayonet lugs. OH NO. NOT A f***ING BAYONET ATTACHMENT POINT.

- Pistol grips. Who needs to control their firearm?

- Heat shield. Maybe you don't, but I love burning my hands. It's lots of fun.

I could go on for hours...

I love it

 

[Half Cocked]

there is nothing "reasonable" about "reasonable" gun control it is right there in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!! to bear means to own and carry arms so having to take a CCW course or having a license is a infringement on my 2a rights.

Have you read the Heller Decision?

Like it or not...that is what 2A means.

 

[mikem317]

Have you read the Heller Decision?

Like it or not...that is what 2A means.

Heller does squat for CCW.

Dick Heller, an individual, can now have a government-registered firearm in his house, located in Washington D.C., for personal defense.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Sometimes I wonder if the reason we mis/overvalue the Heller decision is because the consequences of loosing the case were so big that we simply assumed that the benefits of winning would be proportionately large?



That, as we know, is not the case.

 

[mikem317]

OK, INAL, but...

Benefits of Heller: 1. The basic holding of Heller is that 2A guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with military service; 2. To use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes (like self-defense within the confines of your home); 3. "People" mentioned in 2A is the same "People" mentioned in other enumerated rights like 1A and 4A.

Considerations of Heller: 1. The decision itself (5 to 4) was particularly disconcerting (or should be) for all lawful gun owners; 2. Means little or nothing if 2A is not incorporated to the states [Parker ought to clarify this]; 3. The court upheld government licensing and registration processes as constitutional (probably because no relief was sought by Heller's team); 4. Does nothing for lawful gun owners who wish to carry in "sensitive areas" such as schools, court buildings and other government buildings; 5. "Common use" protection only extends to semi-automatic handguns and rifles and not fully-automatic weaponry; 6. The decision does not instruct the lower courts on what level of judicial review ought to be used for future challenges on RKBA; 7. DC is only allowing revolvers to be registered because autoloaders, by their definition, are considered "machine guns" and are therefore, unable to be registered; 8. No FFLs exist in Washington D.C. so purchasing or transferring a firearm is going to be quite a hassle.

 

[Half Cocked]

Heller does squat for CCW.

Dick Heller, an individual, can now have a government-registered firearm in his house, located in Washington D.C., for personal defense.

Agreed.....The Heller decision stated that the 2A was a right of the people to own a firearm and keep said firearm in the home.

Those who are continuing to beat to death the "shall not be infringed" need to realize what that NOW means.

 

[Half Cocked]

Sometimes I wonder if the reason we mis/overvalue the Heller decision is because the consequences of loosing the case were so big that we simply assumed that the benefits of winning would be proportionately large?



That, as we know, is not the case.

The Heller decision was good in the sense that it defined that it is an individual right.

The bad was that it narrowed down the "shall not be infringed" to allow for "reasonable" restrictions. IMO.

 

[Bob P]

The Heller decision was good in the sense that it defined that it is an individual right.

The bad was that it narrowed down the "shall not be infringed" to allow for "reasonable" restrictions. IMO.

Agreed. The good outweighs the bad IMO as it put a stake in that whole 'collective' right argument the antis (including our President elect) loved to make so much.

 

[Half Cocked]

Agreed. The good outweighs the bad IMO as it put a stake in that whole 'collective' right argument the antis (including our President elect) loved to make so much.

Yes...that was huge.

My only reason for referencing this was in response to the post about the literal words of 2A. RE: "shall not be infringed".

When I now hear someone say:

"What part of "Shall not be infringed" do they not understand? My response is now: "What part of Heller do you not understand?

This is the area where I feel we took a hit.

JMNSHO.

 

[Bob P]

Yes...that was huge.

My only reason for referencing this was in response to the post about the literal words of 2A. RE: "shall not be infringed".

When I now hear someone say:

"What part of "Shall not be infringed" do they not understand? My response is now: "What part of Heller do you not understand?

This is the area where I feel we took a hit.

JMNSHO.

Yeah, that's got compromise written all over it. OTOH, we've/they've got the opportunity to further define 'reasonable' - hence the importance of the continued make-up of the court. If the court stays as is we can possibly reduce some of the more harmful definitions. If Obama pulls an FDR and packs the court we're screwed.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Yes...that was huge.

My only reason for referencing this was in response to the post about the literal words of 2A. RE: "shall not be infringed".

When I now hear someone say:

"What part of "Shall not be infringed" do they not understand? My response is now: "What part of Heller do you not understand?

This is the area where I feel we took a hit.

JMNSHO.

Yup..... +1

 

[Bassturd]

Let me attempt to illustrate an answer to that:

Let's say that you live with your wife, and you are just a generally awful person. You drink heavily, have no patience, and were too cheap to buy a punching bag, so you just use your wife.

One day, she does something to really piss you off, and so you, being a generally awful person, decide to kill her. So, you run out to the store and buy a gun. With a waiting period, you'll have to wait, come back and pick up your new gun, then go home and do it.

The idea is that that moment of blinding rage will pass, and you won't kill someone. Unfortunately, gun control advocates fail to realize there's a million ways to kill someone. Will it stop someone from going out, buying a gun legally, then going home and committing murder? Sure it will; but it won't stop the murder--it'll only stop the legal sale of a firearm to someone who has malicious intentions at that very moment.

You hit the nail on the head. This whole idea is just plain dumb, but I guess that's just from my/our perspective.

Someone in a killing rage does not drive to Walmart to buy a gun. The pick up something and bludgeon, cut, stab, shoot, etc., based on what's available in the fit of rage.

Someone driving to the store and buying a gun for the purpose of killing someone at their first opportunity is committing premeditated murder. 5 day waiting periods only make for more chance to premeditate.