"What is wrong" was already asked....

Steve S said:
It has been proven that the teen mind (especially male) does not mature until the mid twenties. I think the 21 year old rule makes sense but then again many of these instances, the shooter does not own the weapon that was used - it belonged to another family member who legally purchased the weapon. So I can get behind stiff penalties for the family member that doesn't lock up their weapons up to and including being charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter. That would get the paretns involved and making tough decisions for the kid that is acting out at home (and many of these kids have done that).

These teens are high susceptible to what is being told to them by the "backing groups" pushing their agendas. A former neighbors daughter marched yesterday and posted a diatribe or Facebook that contained mostly inaccuracies about the whole gun issue. Her father is a conservative republican gun owner with a CCL and said he was proud of her marching and standing up for her beliefs but a number of her views were grossly inaccurate. She got the talking points from the people backing her march.
Click to expand...

Totally agree on part of that. Most researchers and psychologists say the mind does not truly reach maturity until well into the mid 20's or later. But they can vote before they mature. And the majority (80%) don't even vote, at least in the past. But what if they did? What if something like this gains momentum and becomes the Vietnam of the 2020's? Where are they leaning today? Are the majority of them gun owners and NRA members today? Do they place the same value on the 2nd amendment that you do? Maybe. Maybe not.
 
I am a 2A supporter but agree there needs to be some changes. We don't need new laws that restrict the rights of the majority. I see no use for bump stops other than to be cool and brag. Ban those. Enact a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun unless you hold a CCW (which either means you already own guns or you had a waiting period to get your CCW). And yes, penalties for the owners of these guns that the kids get ahold of. Mine stayed locked in my safe until my kids were old enough.
 
boatman37 said:
I am a 2A supporter but agree there needs to be some changes. We don't need new laws that restrict the rights of the majority. I see no use for bump stops other than to be cool and brag. Ban those. Enact a 5 day waiting period to buy a gun unless you hold a CCW (which either means you already own guns or you had a waiting period to get your CCW). And yes, penalties for the owners of these guns that the kids get ahold of. Mine stayed locked in my safe until my kids were old enough.
Click to expand...

And as rational as that may be, the NRA disagrees with you.
 
Creekwood said:
Hey, you know your laws better than I do. I have no idea what it takes to amend it, or even if it needs to be amended. Virtually every state has laws that "interpret" the 2nd amendment. Some have concealed carry laws, some do not. Some have restrictions on how, who, when and where guns can be bought. Are all those unconstitutional? (I know, I know, the NRA has taken states to court over them from time to time).

Anyway, my point is laws are written based on the people's will and democracy. And politicians and law makers make decisions in order to stay elected by the various majorities. So you can nit pick the details, but the fact is that laws change when the democratic majority decides they need to change.
Click to expand...

I can certainly understand someone from another country not being fully up to speed on how our system works.

In the US, the laws do not “change when the democratic majority decides they need to change.” A new law may be passed, but it will be struck down by our courts if it is unconstitutional. That goes for every federal, state, and local law that is passed by a legislative body. Philadelphia passed some new gun laws a while back and the courts promptly struck them down. The majority of the voting public in Philadelphia believes concealed carry should be abolished or significantly curtailed, yet my carry permit has remained legal. So it is our constitution that ultimately determines whether a law gets changed, regardless of whether the “democratic majority” favors or disfavors it.

That is why it is incorrect to say that these are nit picky details, and that a simple majority of the voters can put laws in place that significantly curtail the possession of firearms. A new law can only go so far, or it will be struck down as unconstitutional. To get around that, the constitution must be changed, which as I said above is a huge deal.
 
Folks I am bowing out of this thread. I have huge respect for opinions other than mine, even those I disagree with. We are lucky in Canada and the US to be able to actively voice our opinions. But I am going to take my own advice that I remind myself before visiting my relatives in the US, and not argue politics. I have a lot of respect for all of you and for the fundamental principles of your constitution that you so rightly defend. And quite frankly, its not my country. I hope you can get it figured out so that you find that balance that keeps Americans safe and free.
Back to boating!
 
Creekwood said:
Folks I am bowing out of this thread. I have huge respect for opinions other than mine, even those I disagree with. We are lucky in Canada and the US to be able to actively voice our opinions. But I am going to take my own advice that I remind myself before visiting my relatives in the US, and not argue politics. I have a lot of respect for all of you and for the fundamental principles of your constitution that you so rightly defend. And quite frankly, its not my country. I hope you can get it figured out so that you find that balance that keeps Americans safe and free.
Back to boating!
Click to expand...

Cheers, Creekwood. Look forward to some boating-related discussions with you.
 
Creekwood said:
And the NRA does what????

By the way, the Kids 100% are standing for what THEY believe in. The fact that there are other groups and citizens backing and supporting them does not change that.

My main point in all of this is that you can pile into a well fortified bunker flying a 2nd amendment flag while the potential groundswell around you changes the laws without your input. Or you can actually work to define changed rules that everyone can live with (literally and figuratively). If you take the first path, you just may end up with new laws that you really don't like.
Click to expand...

The NRA, while getting some funding from the industry like most groups, is a member driven organization. In fact the real power of the NRA is not campaign donations but votes. The anti-gun organizations still do not understand that the NRA has a small group of members and an exponentially very interested non-member group that votes with them.

You have been suckered in by the debate club prompted by anti-gun groups and CNN and their brethren in the media, oops I repeat.

MM
 
The latest is financial powerhouse CitiGroup, which announced sweeping new rules this week that would prevent clients from selling firearms to people who fail background checks, restrict the sales of firearms to people under 21, and ban the sale of bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

How? If it's my money how can a bank tell me how to spend it or regulate what I spend it on?
 
Woody said:
They're not.
https://blog.citigroup.com/2018/03/announcing-our-us-commercial-firearms-policy
Click to expand...
Woody, Citibank is regulating what I can spend my money on. From your linked article

Under this new policy, we will require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to these best practices: (1) they don’t sell firearms to someone who hasn’t passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don’t sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines. This policy will apply across the firm, including to small business, commercial and institutional clients, as well as credit card partners, whether co-brand or private label. It doesn't impact the ability of consumers to use their Citi cards at merchants of their choice.​
 
LTD.330 said:
Woody, Citibank is regulating what I can spend my money on. From your linked article

Under this new policy, we will require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to these best practices: (1) they don’t sell firearms to someone who hasn’t passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don’t sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines. This policy will apply across the firm, including to small business, commercial and institutional clients, as well as credit card partners, whether co-brand or private label. It doesn't impact the ability of consumers to use their Citi cards at merchants of their choice.​
Click to expand...
No they're not telling you what you can buy. What they're saying is they won't do business with you.
 
The way I read it, Citi is imposing these restrictions on the businesses that use their credit card merchant services. If you're a gun shop that takes credit cards, using Citi POS system will require you to adhere to their best practices or face having your merchant account canceled.

I still don't see how this will keep guns out of the hands of those wishing to do harm. Perhaps it might stop a few that are under 21 from buying a gun but that's about it. How are they going to track these purchases? Especially the age of the buyer?
 
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Saw this on the internet. Will it happen?
At one time in Canada you could own a pistol and use it openly. My mother told me stories of one of her uncles hunting Bull frogs (You eat the legs) with a pistol be was in the Boer War in South Africa 1899 to 1902.
 
northern said:
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Saw this on the internet. Will it happen?
At one time in Canada you could own a pistol and use it openly. My mother told me stories of one of her uncles hunting Bull frogs (You eat the legs) with a pistol be was in the Boer War in South Africa 1899 to 1902.
Click to expand...

Short version is no. It would take 2/3 of the states, or of the congress, just to call the convention to consider it. Then, assuming that resulted in a proposed amendment, it would take 3/4 of the states, or of the congress, to pass it.
 
Just to be sure,
1) The seller can't sell a gun to someone that can't pass the background check. Or Citi Bank won't allow the transaction.
a) It's a Federal offense to sell a firearm to someone that does not pass the background. So Citi just put their name on a Federal law and called it their own.
2) I have no issue with the 21yo wish. I don't see how it would hurt anyone. I also don't see how it will help much.
Maybe the bank should stick to banking and try harder to keep themselves in check. Wasn't it Citi Bank that used its bailout money to go but new jets and gave out massive bouneses? So now suddenly they have a conscience?
 
To clarify, it is legal to sell and buy firearms between individuals in the state of Florida without a background check or a gun license. Florida has no gun registry, dealers play by a different set of rules.
 
scofflaw, you have it nice down there. Here in the Democratic state of Washington we have to do a background check even if we want to give or loan a gun to a relative. Now how stupid is that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,146
Messages
1,427,274
Members
61,057
Latest member
DrBones!
Back
Top