• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Another School Shooting

RJKarl said:
Then why not make it the law for EVERY transfer of ownership?
Click to expand...

If you're selling enough guns to need a dealer's license, then it should be the law. It seems reasonable that you would be making enough money to do the necessary background check.

But requiring Jim to do a background check on Bob, when he wants to trade his single shot 20 gauge shotgun for Bob's blue tick hound seems like an unreasonable expectation.
 
I'm not contradicting myself at all. The only people who might lose is the gun manufacturers. People will buy guns. they just won;t pay as much per unit.

The same thing can be said about owning as many cars you want. If you can't afford the insurance on 10 or 15 guns, then you own seven. You can still "keep and bear arms".

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment saying you can own as many guns as you want.
 
but the government creating excessive barriers to owning could be interpreted as an infringement

i mean, didnt' we go to war over excessive stamp and tea taxes?
 
WakeForestRanger said:
If you're selling enough guns to need a dealer's license, then it should be the law. It seems reasonable that you would be making enough money to do the necessary background check.

But requiring Jim to do a background check on Bob, when he wants to trade his single shot 20 gauge shotgun for Bob's blue tick hound seems like an unreasonable expectation.
Click to expand...

It takes no time at all. It is not unreasonable.

Then how about this? If Jim sells Bob a shotgun and Bob is a felon, Jim a co-conspirator on any crime Bob commits. Give Jim the choice, take some time and get the background check or go to jail if that weapon is ever used in a crime by a felon.
 
Gun insurance if it functions like every other insurance will be an ongoing expense. You're creating a hardship on rural poor people whose main source of recreation is hunting.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Gun insurance if it functions like every other insurance will be an ongoing expense. You're creating a hardship on rural poor people whose main source of recreation is hunting.
Click to expand...

Then they buy a different gun. They are able to afford hunting licenses and other expenses. Your point is gun industry, brainwashed BS.
 
You're talking about making people pay for insurance on something they already own.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Gun insurance if it functions like every other insurance will be an ongoing expense. You're creating a hardship on rural poor people whose main source of recreation is hunting.
Click to expand...

They have to pay for a hunting license every year.

The insurance on hunting guns, set by the market, would be really, really low. The odds of any given hunting gun hurting someone or being used in a crime are very low, and they are even lower if the gun is secured, even lower if the owner has a clean record, and lower still if the gun is located in a rural low-crime area (all factors that insurance actuaries would look at). We're talking a few bucks a year for a deer rifle.

The insurance on a cheap handgun sold to a person with a few drug misdemeanors living in a high-crime urban area who can't prove he has a gun safe would be very high.

My impression is that the great majority of the urban poor would be happy with such an arrangement. People who live in high crime areas don't want to live the white conservative fantasy of arming themselves and have shoot outs with intruders - because it's great as a fantasy, not so great as a reality. They want and support high barriers to gun ownership, because they see first hand every day the result of easy-to-obtain, cheap guns. Middle-class rural conservatives are very insulated from this reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top