Comments On: Gun Nuts and Facts by Chicago Fan

Comments On: Gun Nuts and Facts by Chicago Fan http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/24/gun-nuts-and-facts Comments On: Gun Nuts and Facts by Chicago Fan en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
Look. Either there is a bill that proposes to seize legal guns from lawful citizens, or there isn't. It's clear that there isn't. EVERYTHING else is beside that point.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:35:25 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
The proposed law is written the way it is because Feinstein knows that she'd get voted out of office if she proposed gun grabbing from living people. As it is, I give the law about a 5% chance of passing and if it does, I'm pretty sure that Feinstein and a lot of other democrats will have difficulty getting re-elected.

Which sucks. I think our country, if not our entire world, would be a better place now if Gore had become President. And I think that a large part of why he didn't was related to the 1994 AWB. It was certainly a major part of why he lost Tennessee.

I'd like to believe that if Gore had become president that we would never have invaded Iraq and the cost of that war and subsequent wars would not currently be weighing down our economy, which is responsible for more deaths than all forms of gun related violence. So while you could argue that the 1994 AWB saved several hundred lives (and that would/could be disputed), the overall cost of the 1994 AWB was certainly much greater.
Posted by randoma]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:57:47 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> "so I own my parents' house? SWEET!"

Remember what I said about you being irrational?
Unless you cannot tell the difference between living parents and dead parents then there is no need for me to answer that.
Is there a need for me to answer that?

"Anyway, aside from that absurdity, you raise nothing that challenges my assertion that this does not constitute the seizure of lawfully acquired guns from law abiding citizens."

Except that it does.
Guns that are TODAY the property of the heir via inheritance will be ILLEGAL if that law is passed.
Dead parents are not the same as living parents.
What is legal today is not the same as what is legal after a specific law is passed.
Rational people do not have a problem with those concepts.

Ayn Rand and you are wrong about taxation being the same as seizure.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:09:49 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
Anyway, aside from that absurdity, you raise nothing that challenges my assertion that this does not constitute the seizure of lawfully acquired guns from law abiding citizens. You'd be better off trying to find a law that does that, instead of contorting this one trying to convince anyone that this is such a law.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:45:25 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> "First, because the heirs are not owners."

Unless you are proposing some means by which the concept of private property be abolished then the heirs are the owners.

"But it isn't mine, and it won't be until both my parents are gone."

I don't think you understood the point that was being made.
Once the owner of the gun is DEAD (in your example the owner(s) of the piece are NOT dead) then the gun becomes the property of the legal heir.

"Second, because there's a provision for transference if they have a license, an heir who possesses sense can apply for one."

No.
The license seems to be for an FFL and such.
Example:
A father owns a banned gun.
His son also owns a banned gun.
The father designated his son as his heir to receive his gun when he dies.
When the father dies, the son does NOT receive his father's gun.
Unless the son manages to qualify as an FFL.
Whereas TODAY all the son needs to do is to pay the inheritance tax of the gun.

Again, I know what Ayn Rand taught but taxation but it is NOT the same as seizure which you are claiming it is.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:38:18 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
What I AM arguing against, however, is the idea that this bill proposes to remove guns from the ownership of legal, law-abiding owners. First, because the heirs are not owners. That's just legal reality, bub - I'm set to inherit a family heirloom upon my parent's death, and everyone in the family agrees that it's going to be mine, and I even kind of regard it as mine (I know where it's going when I get it). But it isn't mine, and it won't be until both my parents are gone. Second, because there's a provision for transference if they have a license, an heir who possesses sense can apply for one. If he or she proves qualified, he or she will get it, and then get the gun later.

When people go around claiming that "Government is gonna grab yer gunz!!!", this is neither what they mean, nor what anyone imagines when they hear such a claim. My challenge way back @ 32 was for you (or anyone else) to show that lawful citizens were being threatened with arbitrary confiscation of legally acquired weapons, and this law does not meet that challenge.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:30:11 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> Strange, I thought that "licensed" in that context meant such as FFL.
Not someone possessing a permit.

"Because heirs are not owners until the property transfers."

I know that Ayn Rand liked to make a case for taxation to be theft and such.
I do not agree with her.
Why wouldn't the heir be able to pay the tax and keep his lawfully inherited property?

Because you want the law changed so that the property is no longer lawfully inherited.
So you do not get to claim that it is because the property cannot be inherited because that is the change you want to make.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:04:44 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
Let's play that again.

it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter...

So the heir just needs a license, too. Problem solved!

FAIL.

Oh, and nice bit of sexism you throw in there toward the end. Can't a mother own a gun? Nancy Lanza owned several.

But even if the heir couldn't get a license, you and your sockpuppet still fail to demonstrate a case for seizure of guns from lawful owners. Because heirs are not owners until the property transfers.

Wrap your head around legal definitions of ownership, not what covetous heirs feel they're entitled to.

IN CONCLUSION.... there are NO proposed laws before any legislative body calling for the seizure of guns (any kind of gun) from their lawful, law abiding owners.

Thanks for playing.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:31:22 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> So because you claim that a tax is a seizure then it is okay for the government to seize privately held guns because that is the same as a tax.
No.
A tax can be paid with money.
But Feinstein's proposal does not allow for that.

(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking custody of the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

So the gun cannot be transfered from father to son upon the death of the father.
Even though everything else could be, minus a monetary payment.
And that monetary payment could be gained by selling other inherited property.

(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:20:33 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
My point is that there's already a law that "seizes"* something from the deceased before it goes on to their heir. Feinstein's law, if it in fact does that, is comparable

But now we get to the crux of the matter. The challenge, remember, was to name a propose law that "takes guns from lawful owners." If Feinstein's law takes a gun upon the death of the owner before it becomes the property of the heir, then it's not being seized from the lawful heir because... legally, it never belonged to that heir.

But I've been very generous in even going down this road with you. You haven't demonstrated that Feinstein's law does what you allege - this is the law that you did NOT link way back at 56, where you brought it up. Nor could I locate the provision when I read over the law myself earlier today.

In short, you're making shit up. Feinstein's law does NOT contain a provision for seizing any of the banned guns from the estates of their deceased owners, contrary to your unsupported allegation that it does.

* Using your vocabulary here, not saying that it's the correct word to use.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:48:12 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
Since I think the Federal estate tax currently exempts the first $5 million, and completely exempts anything left to your spouse, if you want to include an exemption in the Feinstein bill for the first, say, 20 (completely arbitrary number, just like the $5 million) firearms in ones 'banned' collection (for items left for heirs other than your spouse) and exempt all items left to your spouse, I'd say that would be a valid comparison.

Which is to say, the estate tax has an impact on about 1% of heirs. Feinstein's bill will have an impact on everyone that owns a 'banned' firearm. Additionally, the estate tax doesn't have any impact on things left to your spouse.

Nice try though.
Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:46:06 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
Anyway, do you also oppose the estate tax? Because that also "confiscates" property before the heirs can claim it.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:22:24 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
@67, the FBI/BATF is actually very good at tracing lineage of crime weapons. They're just not very good at prosecuting people for providing criminals with weapons even though there are lots of laws against traffic in illegal firearms.

Unrelated, but have you ever been to a gun show? The statistic that 40% of sellers at gun shows are non-FFL's does not include the fact that many of the non-FFL sellers aren't selling firearms. Additionally, the majority of private sellers are selling collectibles, not cheap handguns. In fact, percentage-wise very few crime guns are purchased at gun shows.

Here's a short article for you:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/…

Universal background checks are going to have minimal impact on most of the channels listed in the article.
Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:18:42 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:49:54 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
U.S. gun manufacturers alone produce over a million weapons per year, and this doesn't count the hundreds of thousands more produced by overseas manufacturers and legally imported into the U.S. So, why the fuck would anyone smuggle guns INTO this country, when we've already got nearly 300,000,000 (roughly one-third of the entire WORLD ARSENAL of small arms) here already, and have been the #1 EXPORTER of guns to the world market for more years than anyone can count?

Oh, right. Because in your paranoid fantasy world, that MUST the how criminals obtain their guns - because it's so much easier than just going to a gun show and buying one - or twenty - off a private seller who doesn't ask any pesky questions about what you're going to do with all those guns.
Posted by COMTE]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:15:09 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> Posted by Pridge Wessea]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:37:03 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> "the fact that you keep responding to my charges that you lack credibility demonstrate that you care that I keep saying so."

Again, I do not care whether you think I have any credibility.
I do care about you being the poster child for gun control in these forums because you are irrational.

And I know that no matter how many times I make that same point you will not be able to understand it.
Because you are irrational.

"Anyway, until you switch over to your 'randoma' account and address me @ 61, I'll leave you to fulfill your desperate need to have the last word."

And again with the sock puppet claim.

"If anyone (besides a sockpuppet) disagrees with me and agrees with you, they'll speak up."

And so it continues.
You are quite insistent that there is something other than simple disagreement with your opinions.
Or how did you phrase it before?

"Fuck you for resisting my righteous judgment of your disingenuous bullshit."

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:37:16 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
Anyway, you needn't take my word for it. Besides @ 57's testimony, many previous f.u.-dominated gun threads have people deriding you for being unable to make rational arguments. That is obviously stinging you, leading you to project onto others (such as myself, but I'm far from the only one) that THEY are the ones who aren't rational.

I'm far from Slog's most able thinker and debater, but I do pretty well for myself, and better than you for sure. If anyone (besides a sockpuppet) disagrees with me and agrees with you, they'll speak up.

Anyway, until you switch over to your "randoma" account and address me @ 61, I'll leave you to fulfill your desperate need to have the last word. See if you can make it good and actually answer the challenge I directed at you way back @ 32 (provide evidence that anyone is attempting to pass laws seizing guns from lawful and law-abiding owners).
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:24:05 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
If there was a clause whereby your heirs had to submit to a background check and register..etc., that would be a different.
Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:15:30 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> "prove that you don't care. Your every answer to me demonstrates otherwise."

What was it I had said?
Something about how you are unable to understand basic English.

I do not care whether you think I have any credibility.
I do care about you being the poster child for gun control in these forums because you are irrational.
And the reason I care is that you are irrational and when the poster child for gun control is irrational then there is an advantage for people who advocate for gun ownership.

And still you failed to understand what I have just plainly stated.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:33:06 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
@ 60, if you have an illegally acquired piece of art (say, something looted from WW2), should your law-abiding heirs be able to lawfully inherit it?
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:53:39 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
Or are you saying (this is a QUESTION, not a statement of your belief) that if I died, leaving all my worldly possessions to X, and the Federal government stepped in and seized them they would be seizing them from me and not my heirs? 'cause I'm pretty sure my heirs, assuming I left anything worthwhile, wouldn't see it that way.
Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:40:35 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> "As would the need to be able to post with some credibility around here."

And now we're back to that again.
I do not care whether you think I have any credibility here or not.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

"Fuck you for being a dishonest little shit. Fuck you for resisting my righteous judgment of your disingenuous bullshit."

"... my righteous judgment ..."

Your posts show that you are irrational.
You are not capable of determining credibility because you believe that your OPINIONS are the same a facts.
And when someone disagrees with your opinions ...
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:33:27 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]>
@ 56, "In the event of your death [outlawed weapons] would be seized." ≠ "taken from a law abiding citizen." Neither does anything else you list = "taken from a law abiding citizen."

Keep trying?
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:14:38 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Gun Nuts and Facts]]> Posted by catsnbanjos]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:07:02 -0800 The Stranger