@JOL #9396803
Ah. The perils of editing as I go, in a window that only shows six lines of text.
The original third point was wondering just how many of those 46% were over the age of 60, and hadn't bought a gun in 20 years, or hadn't gotten a second gun since they were given one that Christmas they turned 16, (or 14, or 12, or whatever). I ended up cutting it in that message because I couldn't think of anyone personally who fit that description, but didn't change the number of points I'd intended to bring up. Plenty in that age bracket, but they've all added to their collections in that span of time as far as I know.
I also didn't want to raise the specter of the grey-area, as I understand it, of buying a gun for a close family member. Is it a straw purchase if everything the kid owns legally belongs to you anyway?
Later I included it, but as one that likely didn't contribute significantly.
I still don't think that ad was aimed at children. For starters, the narrator speaks to the parents. Further, I don't think it could be shown on network TV, leaving cable, and the only channel I can think of that it might have run on is aimed at adults. While I don't watch a lot of television any longer, I have doubts I'd find many kids programs on the Outdoor Channel.
My point on the NICS deadline was that only because the law included language preventing them from just losing the information, and thus denying people the ability to make purchases, do they have the promptness they do have. Had that line been omitted from the language of the law, we'd very likely have administrations where the phones were deliberately undermanned, in an effort to throttle gun purchases.
One reason the background check was unwelcome, when it was passed, was it means, for a moment, the government does know who is buying a gun, and can at least count how many times a person has bought a gun, thus making a decent estimate about how many guns they likely own. It gives them the information they need should they decide, at some future date, to institute a confiscation plan. "Invisible" guns, while I don't think they're as common as you seem to believe, are a hindrance to such confiscation because the government can never know if they got them all.
And finally.
Bottom line, while I am comfortable with the CURRENT state of affairs, I see the scuffmarks in the sand where that "bottom line" has been adjusted over the past century, and I don't want it to creep anymore toward the virtual loss of the 2nd ammendment.
I'd rather a voluntary system, without the power of law behind it. In place because the stakeholders agree it's better than getting the government involved, and policing each other through loss of reliable access to new wholesale stock.
Remember, there was a day when the gun a farmer bought for himself was in every way equal, or even superior, to the gun the professional soldier would be issued. That hasn't been true for some time. (Superior? Well, the soldier's gun was made by the lowest bidder...)
Alternately, we could go with mandatory drill on Fridays. Institute marksmanship class in high school. That'd never fly, though. It'd demystify and de-demonize the firearm. Something I'm convinced is deliberate. (Why else would suppressers, some times known as "silencers", be restricted? They reduce a loud, bone rattling BOOM to a still noticable, but less gut shaking bang. They make a gun less scary sounding.)
P.S. Try exercizing your constitutionally guaranteed right to openly bear arms in New York's Times Square or on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I bet you don't get far.
46
@JOL #9396803
Ah. The perils of editing as I go, in a window that only shows six lines of text.
The original third point was wondering just how many of those 46% were over the age of 60, and hadn't bought a gun in 20 years, or hadn't gotten a second gun since they were given one that Christmas they turned 16, (or 14, or 12, or whatever). I ended up cutting it in that message because I couldn't think of anyone personally who fit that description, but didn't change the number of points I'd intended to bring up. Plenty in that age bracket, but they've all added to their collections in that span of time as far as I know.
I also didn't want to raise the specter of the grey-area, as I understand it, of buying a gun for a close family member. Is it a straw purchase if everything the kid owns legally belongs to you anyway?
Later I included it, but as one that likely didn't contribute significantly.
I still don't think that ad was aimed at children. For starters, the narrator speaks to the parents. Further, I don't think it could be shown on network TV, leaving cable, and the only channel I can think of that it might have run on is aimed at adults. While I don't watch a lot of television any longer, I have doubts I'd find many kids programs on the Outdoor Channel.
My point on the NICS deadline was that only because the law included language preventing them from just losing the information, and thus denying people the ability to make purchases, do they have the promptness they do have. Had that line been omitted from the language of the law, we'd very likely have administrations where the phones were deliberately undermanned, in an effort to throttle gun purchases.
One reason the background check was unwelcome, when it was passed, was it means, for a moment, the government does know who is buying a gun, and can at least count how many times a person has bought a gun, thus making a decent estimate about how many guns they likely own. It gives them the information they need should they decide, at some future date, to institute a confiscation plan. "Invisible" guns, while I don't think they're as common as you seem to believe, are a hindrance to such confiscation because the government can never know if they got them all.
And finally.
Bottom line, while I am comfortable with the CURRENT state of affairs, I see the scuffmarks in the sand where that "bottom line" has been adjusted over the past century, and I don't want it to creep anymore toward the virtual loss of the 2nd ammendment.
I'd rather a voluntary system, without the power of law behind it. In place because the stakeholders agree it's better than getting the government involved, and policing each other through loss of reliable access to new wholesale stock.
Remember, there was a day when the gun a farmer bought for himself was in every way equal, or even superior, to the gun the professional soldier would be issued. That hasn't been true for some time. (Superior? Well, the soldier's gun was made by the lowest bidder...)
Alternately, we could go with mandatory drill on Fridays. Institute marksmanship class in high school. That'd never fly, though. It'd demystify and de-demonize the firearm. Something I'm convinced is deliberate. (Why else would suppressers, some times known as "silencers", be restricted? They reduce a loud, bone rattling BOOM to a still noticable, but less gut shaking bang. They make a gun less scary sounding.)
P.S. Try exercizing your constitutionally guaranteed right to openly bear arms in New York's Times Square or on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I bet you don't get far.