Another school shooting

Originally Posted by psudy

Not everything needs to be debated/argued over.

Yes it does!

Srsly -- it's nice to see reasonable people come to agreement from time to time.

(oops, my bad, forgive me for quoting that line from the communist manifesto)

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Yes it does!

Srsly -- it's nice to see reasonable people come to agreement from time to time.

(oops, my bad, forgive me for quoting that line from the communist manifesto)

There is no agreement. California already has the private party sales checks in place. Have for a few decades. Wasn't there 2 mass shooting here the last few years? This "agreement" is just another shovel full of dirt to help make the slope a little more sloppy and slippery. It would not be the end of the debate and the left trying to erode our rights..

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

There is no agreement. California already has the private party sales checks in place. Have for a few decades. Wasn't there 2 mass shooting here the last few years? This "agreement" is just another shovel full of dirt to help make the slope a little more sloppy and slippery. It would not be the end of the debate and the left trying to erode our rights..

I mean you do have to admit that you argue it both ways tho right? On the one hand you argue that we already have these checks in place but crime still happens and on the other hand you argue that the checks are ineffective because the next jurisdiction over doesn't have them.

If all jurisdictions regulated private party sales to the level where you live, wouldn't that prevent some guns from getting into the hands of some criminals?

Sure, "when private party gun sales are outlawed, only outlaws will sell guns private party," but that's true of all criminal activity, right? It at least keeps the law abiding citizen from unwittingly participating in a transaction with someone whose criminal background could've been revealed from a background check. I'm sure you'd agree that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I mean you do have to admit that you argue it both ways tho right? On the one hand you argue that we already have these checks in place but crime still happens and on the other hand you argue that the checks are ineffective because the next jurisdiction over doesn't have them.

If all jurisdictions regulated private party sales to the level where you live, wouldn't that prevent some guns from getting into the hands of some criminals?

Sure, "when private party gun sales are outlawed, only outlaws will sell guns private party," but that's true of all criminal activity, right? It at least keeps the law abiding citizen from unwittingly participating in a transaction with someone whose criminal background could've been revealed from a background check. I'm sure you'd agree that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing?

Did not argue that the next jurisdiction not having a check is anything. At the end of the day, if someone means to do others harm, the amount of regulation is not going to stop them. The guns used in the latest killings were purchased legally. A few years ago it was hand guns were the issue. Now it is the scary black rifle is the issue. It is always going to be an issue. Sounds to me if all you democrats turned in your guns, the world would be a safe place so lets start by disarming you.

Can you tell me without looking it up what is considered the gun for registration? The fact I posed the question to you should tell you something about it. Which part is the gun for a AR 15?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Sounds to me if all you democrats turned in your guns, the world would be a safe place so lets start by disarming you.

If you want to make an "us/them" distinction which would undoubtedly reduce gun violence, it would be smarter to start with men.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

If you want to make an "us/them" distinction which would undoubtedly reduce gun violence, it would be smarter to start with men.

while that may be true, men don't want to get rid of guns and subvert our rights. That would be the democrats. it is the democrats who want to get rid of guns, so let the democrats get rid of their guns. It can not be any more simple.

So, back to the question at hand since this registration thing is so cut and dried and will solve most of the issues.

Which part of an AR15 is considered the gun for registration purposes? Surely this is a simple answer.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Which part of an AR15 is considered the gun for registration purposes? Surely this is a simple answer.

the part with the serial number. yes, I had to look. What does that add to the discussion? Are you just making the point that federal gun laws are so disjointed as to what does and doesn't constitute the gun that it's impossible to reasonably regulate transactions? Or that it's possible to build an unregistered AR with an 80% lower?