Hooknswoop

How do you not see the difference? Restricting the sale and possession of alcohol did not work. The assault weapon ban did not work. Laws regulating the purchase and ownership of alcohol are very limited. I can walk into any liquor store and buy as much as I want and only have to show ID proving I'm over 21. Like Bill said, education, enforcing the law, and stiff penalties is what had an impact on drunk driving. Derek V

How do you get own the list? How do you get off the list? If they have not broken the law, how can you deny them their constitutional rights? What about due process? They do apply to gun shows. What is wrong with AR-15's? What do you suggest that will make a significant difference without significantly limiting the 2nd Amendment? Derek V

And I am carded every time I buy a firearm. And alcohol isn't protected by constitution. The point is more gun control is not going to give any significant gains. Like drunk driving, education, enforcing the law, and stiff penalties. Car regulation is not going to prevent drunk driving. Derek V

How many fatalities per year from drunk driving? More than 100? The dead do not care if they were shot or killed by a drunk driver. My reply was addressing Bill Von's analogy of how drunk driving was addressed. Controlling alcohol was not the solution. Education,mentor cement of the law and stiff penalties for violating the law made a difference. Derek V

Exactly. They didn't require background checks for buying alcohol or limit alcohol purchases to a 6 pack or one bottle. They realized that trying to control the alcohol would not reduce drunk driving. Education, enforcement and stiff penalties. Derek V

How do you identify the sellers and buyers? They don't have brick and mortar stores like alcohol stores. They walk into their hoise, one with a firearm, the other with cash. They walk out, having completed the transaction and are now safe from prosecution. For criminals buying firearms, police could run a sting operation. But that would still only catch the buyer or a seller. How many people are selling firearms illegally? How much of an impact of firearm violence would these efforts have? Is this good use of law enforcement resources? I do use what shootings would have been prevented had a proposed gun control law already been in place. Isn't that the measure of how effective a gun control law is? Politicians say we have to pass these measures to prevent future mass shootings, shouldn't we look at if a measure will be effective or not? Derek V

A. Replaced Spectra kill line with Vectran. B. UPT semi-stowless D-bag. C. Magnetic Riser covers. D. Good body position at deployment. No more line twists. Derek V

I do not have the answers to those questions. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html Derek V

http://www.cnbc.com/...ence-commentary.html Derek V

We have had the universal background check here in Colorado for the last 3 years. It has done nothing. Regarding private sales here in CO; If someone could legally buy a gun before, they still can, it just costs more and adds the convince of having to go to a gun shop to have the background check done. If someone could not legally buy a gun, they know that and they buy one illegally, same as before the law was enacted. If they get caught with the gun, they are prosecuted. There is no way to trace where they bought the gun, same as before the law was passed. Colorado sheriffs are suing to have the background check and magazine limit laws repealed. http://coloradoguncase.org Derek V

BillVon was kind enough to post a link to the CDC study. We can discuss the CDC study or the other nonsense. One choice is productive, the other is not. Derek V

Adds an inconvenience factor and added cost to private sales, without actually having any impact of firearm related violence. I guess you could prosecute them before they illegally obtain a firearm, but that has obvious problems associated with it. People barred from owning firearms are going to obtain them. I am not saying make it easy for them. Increased police force size and budgets have been shown to be very effective in reducing firearm-related violence. Gun-control laws have been ineffective. The way forward is obvious. Spend the money, enforce the laws. Derek V

http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/03/playing-the-man-and-not-the-ball-2/ Basically Kallend's go-to move, attack the person when the facts are working against you. Keep shouting "Facebook!" and "Plagiarism!" and do not discuss the facts in the CDC study. Derek V

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html Great article. This is a solution I can support. Increase police budgets. Derek V

How did she do with the cutaway handle? Derek V

If I have to prove I am innocent or I am guilty, then yes, that is guilty until proven innocent. If I am pulled over and cannot produce a DL, they can just check the database and see I have a current, valid DL. I don't have to prove anything. Derek V

The law is not a deterrent if people know they are not going to get caught. When you graph it out, it a flat line. At zero. After 3 years, it has had zero effect. I am willing to guess that it is not going to change in the next 3 years. Derek V

Please explain why the law is not working here in Colorado then? Derek V

I agree that a gun registry is the ultimate goal. When I point out that the universal background check law is unenforceable without the national registry, I keep waiting to hear, "Well then, lets make registration mandatory". They did it in Connecticut. It didn't work. People simply broke the law and refused to register their firearms. Kallend alluded to it with the "3. Record keeping." suggestion. He, of course, will not clarify what he meant by that. He doesn't participate in actual discussions. Derek V

I know I am cherry picking and editing heavily, but this is key. If you first realize that with the 2nd amendment, we have guns in this country. You have hit on some very important points. Derek V

That is not what I am saying. I am saying it is already illegal. Making it illegal again does nothing. The universal background check law here in Colorado proves that. Short period of time? It has been 3 years..... Derek V

To be clear, reducing the 100 number or 30-round magazine number? I am not against it, in theory. The problem is to be effective, you have to have a national gun registry. This way, the government/BATF could track who has what guns and if a background check was performed for each transfer. This is something I am against. This makes universal background check laws pointless. This sounds like guilty until proven innocent. I am not just calling it unenforceable, I am presenting proof that it is unenforceable. We have that law here in Colorado. Law enforcement cannot enforce this law. When universal background check laws are pitched, they sound great. -Someone that cannot legally purchase a firearm can circumvent the background check requirement by buying from a private seller. Passing a universal background check will close this loop hole. Sounds great, right? Seems like a "common sense" gun law. The reality is different. -Someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm in a state with a universal background check does the same thing they have always done, buy a firearm on the black market. But they didn't pass a background check! They don't care if they are breaking another law. But what about the seller? Now they are breaking the law. To catch them, you first have to catch the person that bought the firearm and get them to tell you who they bought it from. Let's say they name me. The police show up and arrest me. With what evidence? A criminal's word? They will never get a conviction without more evidence, which does not exist. There is no proof I sold the firearm. If I had to register all my firearms, then the proof would exist. I could say it was stolen. OK, the mandatory reporting of stolen firearms. The problem is this registry provides the means for confiscation. Everyone knows a national gun registration is a non-starter. Look at Connecticut. The majority of gun owners are now criminals because they refuse to register their firearms. Derek V

Well, the magazine limit, literally restricts magazines to 15 rounds. The politician that pushed it through thought that magazines were a one-time use item and that soon all the 30-round magazines would be gone. We recalled her from office. This law is a joke. You can just go our of state and buy as many as you want. Or you can go into a gun store here and buy a 30-round magazine kit and assemble it yourself. The universal background check adds a requirement where there wasn't one before. Now, for private gun sales, you have to pay to have a background check done before you can sell the firearm. Another hoop to jump through. It is unenforceable and only added a restriction to those that follow the laws. For the illegal private gun sales, nothing changed. It was already illegal for a felon to posses a firearm. So using private sales to get around the background check was already happening, illegally. They just made it more illegal. I'd like to discuss the issue, not just argue. I am holding out hope that something positive will come of it. Derek V

My position is not, "no restriction on any rights is allowable". I am not sure why you think it is. My position is that we must be extremely careful with adding restrictions to constitutional rights. Any further restrictions must be result in significant gains. For example, the magazine limit and universal background check laws here in Colorado. They added a restriction to our constitutional right for zero gain. That is one way to look at it. Another way is the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can only have them at home. I would think that if they meant you can only have firearms at home, they would have said so. They did not put that restriction into the amendment. Derek V

Agreed. Derek V