Bill Gates challenging the NRA and will use his money to promote background checks

[irishScott]

Meh, a measly million to support Universal Background Checks in a single state. I can agree to disagree with that. It's not like he's being the next Bloomberg.

 

[glenn1]

You don't see your hypocrisy do you?

On one hand you complain about gun rights being violated and how anti gun people are eroding those rights.

On the other hand say that if the anti gun folks want to play that game then the anti abortion should be allowed to do the same thing.

I then explain to you how the anti abortion folks are already playing that game and you don't complain about it.

The logical response would be to support the right of women to access abortion and women's health services with restrictions as well as to support peoples right to own guns limitations. Limitations that still allow access with minimal hindrance while achieving, a reduction in abortions and a reduction in unfit people obtaining guns.

Instead you throw a tantrum, essentially saying, if they want to play dirty then so will you!

I don't support the harassment measures against abortion clinics and would oppose them in my state. Both those laws and this one are stupid IMHO but I also believe in federalism and think other states have the right to impose stupid laws. And the right of citizens to move to other states if they don't like them.

That being said I don't mind restrictions which impose de minimis burdens to the vast majority of citizens, such as Voter ID laws (particularly when the ID is provided free of charge), requiring evidence of basic safety training for firearms or vehicles, and the like. As I said before, if this law provided for a method to perform the background check at effectively no cost I'd have no issues with it, and this "problem" begs for a solution like a public website where the background check can be conducted free of charge. As I stated earlier, asking for a FFL to do the check (and charge for it) as as stupid as requiring all car sales to be facilitated by a auto dealer or requiring people to buy medicines directly from their doctors. But then again I don't live in Oregon so my opinion doesn't really matter.

 

[schmuckley]

I wonder how many guns Bill Gates has? hmm
or his bodyguards carry?
yeah.
watever.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't support the harassment measures against abortion clinics and would oppose them in my state. Both those laws and this one are stupid IMHO but I also believe in federalism and think other states have the right to impose stupid laws. And the right of citizens to move to other states if they don't like them.

That being said I don't mind restrictions which impose de minimis burdens to the vast majority of citizens, such as Voter ID laws (particularly when the ID is provided free of charge), requiring evidence of basic safety training for firearms or vehicles, and the like. As I said before, if this law provided for a method to perform the background check at effectively no cost I'd have no issues with it, and this "problem" begs for a solution like a public website where the background check can be conducted free of charge. As I stated earlier, asking for a FFL to do the check (and charge for it) as as stupid as requiring all car sales to be facilitated by a auto dealer or requiring people to buy medicines directly from their doctors. But then again I don't live in Oregon so my opinion doesn't really matter.

Ok, I can agree with all of that but I'm not opposed to taxes that are paid by citizens that use such services. That doesn't mean the fees can be rediculous but they should be enough to self fund as well as help pay for things like mental illness, training/trainer certification and studies that look at ways to reduce gun violence.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The more salient point is that the use of cars is "well-regulated" (hmm, where else have I see those two words?). Licenses, tests, etc. Because, you know, cars can kill.

Somehow, the 2nd Amendment crowd got it into their heads that any form of regulation is a slippery slope that invariably leads to outright prohibition.

There are some countries with very sensible gun laws. Where to own a gun, you must pass not only a background check, but also a licensing test to make sure that you know how to operate it properly and safely. That's not a prohibition. And that's the kind of thing that the NRA used to support, before its leadership was replaced by hardline zealots. There was a time when the NRA was about promoting marksmanship and safety and less about slippery-slope FUD.

considering the avenue that gun-control advocates have taken, can you really blame the NRA, as the opposition, for taking an equally strong (but opposing) stance?

gun-control advocates have attempted to steamroll (sometimes successfully) virtually meaningless legislation through legislatures. New York's SAFE Act was so well crafted that the 7-round magazine limit included police officers. Add to that the fact that virtually no manufacturer makes a 7-round magazine - the brilliant solution to this conundrum put forth was to own a 10-round mag and load it only to 7 rounds.

The 1994 AWB did essentially nothing. there was 0 measurable effect, as published in an analysis paper by the DOJ. all it did, basically, was inconvenience law-abiding citizens.

magazine limits also are feel-good measures, as the same DOJ report showed that ~20% of all firearm crimes in NJ, IIRC, had more than 10 shots. And in those situations, it was unclear whether the larger magazine capacity actually had an effect on the outcome of the crime.

basically, all these gun laws are targeting symptoms of a larger problem, rather than the problem itself.

inner city gun violence? gangs and drugs. which are also related to education and economic opportunity.

outside of the inner city? handling/safety (for example, the instructor who recently died).

what's the point of banning specific makes/models of firearms, when there are plenty of equivalent makes/models that are legal?

why target "assault weapons" (aka scary black rifles, mostly) when the vast majority of firearms crimes are committed with pistols?

why punish 300 million people, nationwide, when the vast majority of gun crime is committed in certain locales?

quite frankly, it's ridiculous to ban things that make no difference in the end, especially when numbers back that up.