Yeti Caved. Gutless.

JohnInCarolina

stlcharcoal said:

YukonRon said:

If we leave it to the politicians, they will find a way to tax gun owners for weapons and ammunition, further than what they do now.

Could you see yourself paying $200.00 per firearm every year, and each round of ammo being taxed as well?

That would pay for a heckuva plan to answer all the "what ifs."

I would be paying around a K/yr.

There already is a $200 tax......federal tax stamp for NFA / Title II firearms.  It's one time, not yearly, but it also get charged twice anytime that firearm changes ownership (and twice when it goes changes ownership across a state line.)  Currently a 6-7 months wait time too.

Then there's a federal excise tax on firearms and ammo (FAET).  It's 10-11%.

Then we also have a Special Occupational Tax for Federal Firearm Dealers.

Then because of all the import laws & taxes on firearms, most foreign firearm companies choose to manufacture in the US--so the US gov makes all kinds of extra money on income taxes, property tax, etc for all the jobs and infrastructure to make those firearms here. 

The US government tax the hell out of the firearms industry, yet it still thrives and states welcome gun and ammo manufacturers because of it.  One of those states.....wait for it........Illinois.

The suggestion here is not to tax them to reduce gun purchases per se, although that would be a side effect, but rather to tax guns and ammo to raise sufficient funds to provide security personnel at every school in the country.  

Of course, nothing like that ever has any chance of making it through Congress, so... 

JohnInCarolina

billt01 said:

@TEXASBGE2018


Careful some people on here just like to.....

Maybe you can try to explain to him your deep thoughts on "chaotic theory"  and intelligent design.  Lord knows we're all still waiting with baited breath for that explanation.  

DMW

JohnInCarolina said:

billt01 said:

@TEXASBGE2018


Careful some people on here just like to.....

Maybe you can try to explain to him your deep thoughts on "chaotic theory"  and intelligent design.  Lord knows we're all still waiting with baited breath for that explanation.  

Lordy I hope there are tapes.

GATraveller

Instead of pushing for more laws, taxes and removing freedoms shouldn't these kids work on changing their violent culture?  Gun violence is only a symptom of much larger issue.

saluki2007

stlcharcoal said:

saluki2007 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

YukonRon said:

Meanwhile at a Wafflehouse, in Nashville, a half naked man walks in and kills 4 more. 
The guy claimed he was being stalked by Taylor Swift, when he lived in Salida, Colorado, and had been arrested in DC, for refusing to leave a restricted area, because he wanted to meet with Donald Trump.
The most bizarre aspect is not that he is unstable, it is that the state of Illinois took all his weapons, and instead of destroying them or whatever, they gave them back to this guy's father. The father gave them back to him before he moved to Nashville.
Crazy.

Yep.  Will be interesting to see if the father ends up getting prosecuted for anything.  

Been trying to figure that out myself.  TN and IL have vastly different gun laws.  He may have not violated any laws.  This is a perfect example of why we need national gun laws and not state laws.  Either way the father needs to lawyer up because he will be getting sued.

So now we should going to repeal the 10th amendment as well?

Either way, there are already tons national gun laws......the National Firearm Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the "Brady Bill", the former "Assualt Weapons Ban", etc.  How would laws have changed anything?  

IL and TN (or any states') gun laws are not that different when it comes to restrictions from mentally ill, felons, etc from possessing and the laws on prosecuting them.  IL is just a lot more restrictive when it comes to purchasing, transporting, and CCW, especially for non-residents.  In any case, they're all still covered by the same GCA, NFA, and other federal laws.

One law that is specific to IL (and I'm sure some other states) is that guns taken away from mentally unstable people can be given to a family member for "safe keeping".  Why let the family have the chances to say yea you seem fine today here are your guns back.  Now I realize he may have still gotten a gun and committed this awful act, but it would have been a lot harder and possibly prevented.

fishlessman

yeti verse tannerite

https://youtu.be/ImSfjiM5ydg

JohnInCarolina

fishlessman said:

yeti verse tannerite

https://youtu.be/ImSfjiM5ydg

So these morons basically shot up a perfectly good, $300 Yeti cooler for something it's possible that Yeti didn't even do.  

Freedumb, it is alive and well.  

stlcharcoal

JohnInCarolina said:

The suggestion here is not to tax them to reduce gun purchases per se, although that would be a side effect, but rather to tax guns and ammo to raise sufficient funds to provide security personnel at every school in the country.  

Of course, nothing like that ever has any chance of making it through Congress, so... 

But it will reduce purchases.  Loss of revenue with lower sales tax collected and income tax paid by firearm companies, and then lower production means less excise tax collected.

And then, where is all the money going that they currently collect?   Two of other industries that get hit this bad on regulation and taxes are alcohol and tobacco (the other two letters in ATF).  Still plenty of drunk drivers and lung cancer out there, so where are the calls for increased taxes on those two?  They take plenty already out of those two industries.

I just don't get why everybody runs immediately to "MORE TAXES, MORE LAWS" when there are already MORE TAXES, MORE LAWS on this industry than any other.....then try call it "common sense".  The last ones didn't work, so why should anyone trust that these higher and more restrictive ones are.  It's all political BS anyway.

The MO gambling industry.  They started the lottery many years ago because it was going to fund the desperate schools.  Years later, the schools are broke, we need casinos.  So, they open casinos that have to be on riverboats and sail with max loss limits.  Years later, they need to approve games of chance (slots) because the schools, then not sail nor have loss limits.  Guess what, the schools are "still broke" and there are property tax hikes proposed every year.  And the lotto runs commercials urging people to buy tickets because it benefits education.  Where the hell did the money go??  It's all a freakin farce and so are excise taxes.  It has nothing to do with your safety, your kids safety, etc.  It's about funding big government, and their mission is to make it bigger.

fishlessman

is this covered under warranty

JohnInCarolina

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The suggestion here is not to tax them to reduce gun purchases per se, although that would be a side effect, but rather to tax guns and ammo to raise sufficient funds to provide security personnel at every school in the country.  

Of course, nothing like that ever has any chance of making it through Congress, so... 

But it will reduce purchases.  Loss of revenue with lower sales tax collected and income tax paid by firearm companies, and then lower production means less excise tax collected.

And then, where is all the money going that they currently collect?   Two of other industries that get hit this bad on regulation and taxes are alcohol and tobacco (the other two letters in ATF).  Still plenty of drunk drivers and lung cancer out there, so where are the calls for increased taxes on those two?  They take plenty already out of those two industries.

I think the idea that increased taxes will somehow cause all problems to end is a straw man argument.  Nobody is suggesting that.

Personally I think that the notion of paying for armed security guards in every school is kind of ridiculous in terms of trying to "fix" this problem we have in the US.  It's just interesting to me to think about raising taxes on guns and ammo to do it, because I think it reveals exactly how far people - in particular gun enthusiasts - are willing to go in support of what they think should be done.  Turns out, not very far actually.    

"Please find a solution to this, as long as it doesn't cost me any more money!" seems to be the line folks will draw.  Your response illustrates that perfectly.  

stlcharcoal

JohnInCarolina said:

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The suggestion here is not to tax them to reduce gun purchases per se, although that would be a side effect, but rather to tax guns and ammo to raise sufficient funds to provide security personnel at every school in the country.  

Of course, nothing like that ever has any chance of making it through Congress, so... 

But it will reduce purchases.  Loss of revenue with lower sales tax collected and income tax paid by firearm companies, and then lower production means less excise tax collected.

And then, where is all the money going that they currently collect?   Two of other industries that get hit this bad on regulation and taxes are alcohol and tobacco (the other two letters in ATF).  Still plenty of drunk drivers and lung cancer out there, so where are the calls for increased taxes on those two?  They take plenty already out of those two industries.

I think the idea that increased taxes will somehow cause all problems to end is a straw man argument.  Nobody is suggesting that.

Personally I think that the notion of paying for armed security guards in every school is kind of ridiculous in terms of trying to "fix" this problem we have in the US.  It's just interesting to me to think about raising taxes on guns and ammo to do it, because I think it reveals exactly how far people - in particular gun enthusiasts - are willing to go in support of what they think should be done.  Turns out, not very far actually.    

"Please find a solution to this, as long as it doesn't cost me any more money!" seems to be the line folks will draw.  Your response illustrates that perfectly.  

No, it's the argument of how throwing more money at something is going to fix it.  It's broken, and the FL shooting is a perfect example of how all the signs were there and the people that are supposed to protect us did NOTHING.  So how is giving those folks more money going to fix anything?  

They can tax and regulate it all they want, and I will comply and pay because I am a law abiding citizen and can afford it.  But the NON-law abiding citizens (and non-citizens) are going to continue to break the laws (thus not pay the taxes.)  And for the poor folks who are law abiding and cannot afford the "sin" tax(es), they're just going to have to rely on the police and other government to protect them.

Firearms laws have always been some of the most racist laws on the books, very much "pay to play" for the wealthy and connected.  The permission to acquire and "may issue" permits did and still do (in some states) put all the power in the Sheriffs' hands.......and in some counties unless you were a connected family and/or a color, religion, political party the CLEO liked, you're not getting a firearm or permit.  The NRA has lobbied to end a lot of that crap, and getting states to write laws/requirements that apply to EVERYONE across the board to a standard.  Going back to the old system in with today's technology and culture is not an option.

thetrim

I wonder if Walt Kowalski would’ve ever bought a YETI l.  My vote is no. 

GATraveller

I have to say that the "pay to play" solution would be deemed racist by those with the proclivity to do so.

JohnInCarolina

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The suggestion here is not to tax them to reduce gun purchases per se, although that would be a side effect, but rather to tax guns and ammo to raise sufficient funds to provide security personnel at every school in the country.  

Of course, nothing like that ever has any chance of making it through Congress, so... 

But it will reduce purchases.  Loss of revenue with lower sales tax collected and income tax paid by firearm companies, and then lower production means less excise tax collected.

And then, where is all the money going that they currently collect?   Two of other industries that get hit this bad on regulation and taxes are alcohol and tobacco (the other two letters in ATF).  Still plenty of drunk drivers and lung cancer out there, so where are the calls for increased taxes on those two?  They take plenty already out of those two industries.

I think the idea that increased taxes will somehow cause all problems to end is a straw man argument.  Nobody is suggesting that.

Personally I think that the notion of paying for armed security guards in every school is kind of ridiculous in terms of trying to "fix" this problem we have in the US.  It's just interesting to me to think about raising taxes on guns and ammo to do it, because I think it reveals exactly how far people - in particular gun enthusiasts - are willing to go in support of what they think should be done.  Turns out, not very far actually.    

"Please find a solution to this, as long as it doesn't cost me any more money!" seems to be the line folks will draw.  Your response illustrates that perfectly.  

No, it's the argument of how throwing more money at something is going to fix it.  It's broken, and the FL shooting is a perfect example of how all the signs were there and the people that are supposed to protect us did NOTHING.  So how is giving those folks more money going to fix anything?  

They can tax and regulate it all they want, and I will comply and pay because I am a law abiding citizen and can afford it.  But the NON-law abiding citizens (and non-citizens) are going to continue to break the laws (thus not pay the taxes.)  And for the poor folks who are law abiding and cannot afford the "sin" tax(es), they're just going to have to rely on the police and other government to protect them.

Again, I think the idea that gun legislation will stop any and all gun crimes is largely missing the point.  It won't.  The bar should be - will they reduce crime?  Can we pass - and enforce - new laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to get a hold of guns in the first place?  Just because they won't make it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who shouldn't have them get them doesn't mean there's not still a lot of value in passing them.  

If you don't think laws eliminate all crime because criminals just break them, then why bother having laws at all?  Don't let the perfect  be the enemy of the good.  

As for the Florida shooting, I actually agree with you in one respect.  One of the people who was supposed to protect those kids and who did NOTHING happened to be the armed security guard.  So I'm not convinced either that throwing money at this issue in the form of providing armed security at every school is worth the added expense.  It's not an argument I'm making at all - I just find it to be an interesting one.

I'll let you have the last word on this because I have a ton of work to get to today, and my procrastination can only continue for so long.  

westernbbq

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The suggestion here is not to tax them to reduce gun purchases per se, although that would be a side effect, but rather to tax guns and ammo to raise sufficient funds to provide security personnel at every school in the country.  

Of course, nothing like that ever has any chance of making it through Congress, so... 

But it will reduce purchases.  Loss of revenue with lower sales tax collected and income tax paid by firearm companies, and then lower production means less excise tax collected.

And then, where is all the money going that they currently collect?   Two of other industries that get hit this bad on regulation and taxes are alcohol and tobacco (the other two letters in ATF).  Still plenty of drunk drivers and lung cancer out there, so where are the calls for increased taxes on those two?  They take plenty already out of those two industries.

I think the idea that increased taxes will somehow cause all problems to end is a straw man argument.  Nobody is suggesting that.

Personally I think that the notion of paying for armed security guards in every school is kind of ridiculous in terms of trying to "fix" this problem we have in the US.  It's just interesting to me to think about raising taxes on guns and ammo to do it, because I think it reveals exactly how far people - in particular gun enthusiasts - are willing to go in support of what they think should be done.  Turns out, not very far actually.    

"Please find a solution to this, as long as it doesn't cost me any more money!" seems to be the line folks will draw.  Your response illustrates that perfectly.  

No, it's the argument of how throwing more money at something is going to fix it.  It's broken, and the FL shooting is a perfect example of how all the signs were there and the people that are supposed to protect us did NOTHING.  So how is giving those folks more money going to fix anything?  

They can tax and regulate it all they want, and I will comply and pay because I am a law abiding citizen and can afford it.  But the NON-law abiding citizens (and non-citizens) are going to continue to break the laws (thus not pay the taxes.)  And for the poor folks who are law abiding and cannot afford the "sin" tax(es), they're just going to have to rely on the police and other government to protect them.

The FBI claimed that they couldnt identify the FL school shooter...even though his name was attached to youtube post saying he wanted to be a school shooter plus the police were at the guys house 20+ times.   People who knew this guy, warned the police and do nothing FBI (the same fbi obsessed with electing hillary and taking down trump) and somehow this is the NRA's fault?   

The las vegas shooter bump stocks were made possible by obama yet this is the NRA's fault?

Hodgkinson was a radical bernie nutjob supporter who had trump derrangement syndrome that was well documented in his social media posts yet the government did nothing

The texas church shooter was dishonorably discharged after domestic violence and that info wasnt shared by yep you guessed it, another governmental entity.

The waffle house shooter was mentally ill, had his weapons taken away, only to be returned by authorities to his father who then gave the guns back to him.  The government should never have given the guys dad his weapons.   The dad is going to be held responsible which should happen but the authorities, who will never be held accountable should share in the blame

So, it seems to me like the solution is not more government because more and bigger gumt failed in every one of these instances. 

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

TEXASBGE2018

JohnInCarolina said:

billt01 said:

@TEXASBGE2018


Careful some people on here just like to.....

Maybe you can try to explain to him your deep thoughts on "chaotic theory"  and intelligent design.  Lord knows we're all still waiting with baited breath for that explanation.  

From now on I am going to take this approach. Its far less annoying and more entertaining. 

Austin Egghead

Oops, it was all a misunderstanding claims Yeti.  Yeti should have gotten out in front of the Cox post a lot sooner.

It appears Yeti is already feeling the market saturation of other "high end coolers".  

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2018/03/26/yeti-coolers-puts-public-offering-plans-on-ice.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2018/04/23/nra-followers-spar-online-with-yeti-igniting.html

I am a NRA Life Member and we own both a Pelican 45 and a Yeti Roadie.  I prefer the Pelican, but it is heavy when empty and unmanageable when full , so the Roadie is always in the car.  Will I buy other Yeti products, maybe maybe not.  Depends if the price justifies the purchase.  

BTW I have a RTIC an Orca, and several Yeti SS mugs and I prefer the Yeti over the other two.  It is easier to remove tea stains from the Yeti.  

jtcBoynton

saluki2007 said:

stlcharcoal said:

saluki2007 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

YukonRon said:

Meanwhile at a Wafflehouse, in Nashville, a half naked man walks in and kills 4 more. 
The guy claimed he was being stalked by Taylor Swift, when he lived in Salida, Colorado, and had been arrested in DC, for refusing to leave a restricted area, because he wanted to meet with Donald Trump.
The most bizarre aspect is not that he is unstable, it is that the state of Illinois took all his weapons, and instead of destroying them or whatever, they gave them back to this guy's father. The father gave them back to him before he moved to Nashville.
Crazy.

Yep.  Will be interesting to see if the father ends up getting prosecuted for anything.  

Been trying to figure that out myself.  TN and IL have vastly different gun laws.  He may have not violated any laws.  This is a perfect example of why we need national gun laws and not state laws.  Either way the father needs to lawyer up because he will be getting sued.

So now we should going to repeal the 10th amendment as well?

Either way, there are already tons national gun laws......the National Firearm Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the "Brady Bill", the former "Assualt Weapons Ban", etc.  How would laws have changed anything?  

IL and TN (or any states') gun laws are not that different when it comes to restrictions from mentally ill, felons, etc from possessing and the laws on prosecuting them.  IL is just a lot more restrictive when it comes to purchasing, transporting, and CCW, especially for non-residents.  In any case, they're all still covered by the same GCA, NFA, and other federal laws.

One law that is specific to IL (and I'm sure some other states) is that guns taken away from mentally unstable people can be given to a family member for "safe keeping".  Why let the family have the chances to say yea you seem fine today here are your guns back.  Now I realize he may have still gotten a gun and committed this awful act, but it would have been a lot harder and possibly prevented.

I thought that the law required that the firearms be turned in to the police or transferred to a private individual with a valid FOID.  You cannot turn them over to just any family member for "safe keeping".  If a family member has a valid FOID then they can take possession.  They cannot legally give them back unless the person regains a valid FOID.

Focker

I'd pay a tax on guns, ammo, if it all went to helping both adults, and especially adolescents, and mental illness.  The real problem here.  It's so bad/overwhelming here in Ioway. 

Patients can't get the help they need, when follow up appointments are booked months out.  They fall through the cracks.  Like the American Veteran, "We The People", are failing them.  

Tax on violent movies, cable, video games.  Facebook tax?  Social media plays a role.

Arming guards at schools is absolutely rifockindonkulous.

saluki2007

jtcBoynton said:

saluki2007 said:

stlcharcoal said:

saluki2007 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

YukonRon said:

Meanwhile at a Wafflehouse, in Nashville, a half naked man walks in and kills 4 more. 
The guy claimed he was being stalked by Taylor Swift, when he lived in Salida, Colorado, and had been arrested in DC, for refusing to leave a restricted area, because he wanted to meet with Donald Trump.
The most bizarre aspect is not that he is unstable, it is that the state of Illinois took all his weapons, and instead of destroying them or whatever, they gave them back to this guy's father. The father gave them back to him before he moved to Nashville.
Crazy.

Yep.  Will be interesting to see if the father ends up getting prosecuted for anything.  

Been trying to figure that out myself.  TN and IL have vastly different gun laws.  He may have not violated any laws.  This is a perfect example of why we need national gun laws and not state laws.  Either way the father needs to lawyer up because he will be getting sued.

So now we should going to repeal the 10th amendment as well?

Either way, there are already tons national gun laws......the National Firearm Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the "Brady Bill", the former "Assualt Weapons Ban", etc.  How would laws have changed anything?  

IL and TN (or any states') gun laws are not that different when it comes to restrictions from mentally ill, felons, etc from possessing and the laws on prosecuting them.  IL is just a lot more restrictive when it comes to purchasing, transporting, and CCW, especially for non-residents.  In any case, they're all still covered by the same GCA, NFA, and other federal laws.

One law that is specific to IL (and I'm sure some other states) is that guns taken away from mentally unstable people can be given to a family member for "safe keeping".  Why let the family have the chances to say yea you seem fine today here are your guns back.  Now I realize he may have still gotten a gun and committed this awful act, but it would have been a lot harder and possibly prevented.

I thought that the law required that the firearms be turned in to the police or transferred to a private individual with a valid FOID.  You cannot turn them over to just any family member for "safe keeping".  If a family member has a valid FOID then they can take possession.  They cannot legally give them back unless the person regains a valid FOID.

You are correct and his father did/does have a valid FOID card.  My point was that the weapons should not be handed over to a family member rather held by the police/county/state until he was deemed "safe".

billt01

JohnInCarolina said:

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

The suggestion here is not to tax them to reduce gun purchases per se, although that would be a side effect, but rather to tax guns and ammo to raise sufficient funds to provide security personnel at every school in the country.  

Of course, nothing like that ever has any chance of making it through Congress, so... 

But it will reduce purchases.  Loss of revenue with lower sales tax collected and income tax paid by firearm companies, and then lower production means less excise tax collected.

And then, where is all the money going that they currently collect?   Two of other industries that get hit this bad on regulation and taxes are alcohol and tobacco (the other two letters in ATF).  Still plenty of drunk drivers and lung cancer out there, so where are the calls for increased taxes on those two?  They take plenty already out of those two industries.

I think the idea that increased taxes will somehow cause all problems to end is a straw man argument.  Nobody is suggesting that.

Personally I think that the notion of paying for armed security guards in every school is kind of ridiculous in terms of trying to "fix" this problem we have in the US.  It's just interesting to me to think about raising taxes on guns and ammo to do it, because I think it reveals exactly how far people - in particular gun enthusiasts - are willing to go in support of what they think should be done.  Turns out, not very far actually.    

"Please find a solution to this, as long as it doesn't cost me any more money!" seems to be the line folks will draw.  Your response illustrates that perfectly.  

No, it's the argument of how throwing more money at something is going to fix it.  It's broken, and the FL shooting is a perfect example of how all the signs were there and the people that are supposed to protect us did NOTHING.  So how is giving those folks more money going to fix anything?  

They can tax and regulate it all they want, and I will comply and pay because I am a law abiding citizen and can afford it.  But the NON-law abiding citizens (and non-citizens) are going to continue to break the laws (thus not pay the taxes.)  And for the poor folks who are law abiding and cannot afford the "sin" tax(es), they're just going to have to rely on the police and other government to protect them.

Again, I think the idea that gun legislation will stop any and all gun crimes is largely missing the point.  It won't.  The bar should be - will they reduce crime?  Can we pass - and enforce - new laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to get a hold of guns in the first place?  Just because they won't make it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who shouldn't have them get them doesn't mean there's not still a lot of value in passing them.  

If you don't think laws eliminate all crime because criminals just break them, then why bother having laws at all?  Don't let the perfect  be the enemy of the good.  

As for the Florida shooting, I actually agree with you in one respect.  One of the people who was supposed to protect those kids and who did NOTHING happened to be the armed security guard.  So I'm not convinced either that throwing money at this issue in the form of providing armed security at every school is worth the added expense.  It's not an argument I'm making at all - I just find it to be an interesting one.

I'll let you have the last word on this because I have a ton of work to get to today, and my procrastination can only continue for so long.  

If a bad person wants a gun, they will get a gun.. If a drug addict wants drugs, they will get drugs....

There is no value is wasting money and time trying to pass a law which will have NO value to a criminal who wishes to inflict harm on society...

Its against the law to hurt anyone with ANY object, there are laws which outline this...Yeah, those help don't they...

Added legislation does not enforce or assist morality.

God help your kids...

johnnyp

Did you read the next two sentences?  You don't have to agree, but why talk in circles?

Gulfcoastguy

saluki2007 said:

jtcBoynton said:

saluki2007 said:

stlcharcoal said:

saluki2007 said:

JohnInCarolina said:

YukonRon said:

Meanwhile at a Wafflehouse, in Nashville, a half naked man walks in and kills 4 more. 
The guy claimed he was being stalked by Taylor Swift, when he lived in Salida, Colorado, and had been arrested in DC, for refusing to leave a restricted area, because he wanted to meet with Donald Trump.
The most bizarre aspect is not that he is unstable, it is that the state of Illinois took all his weapons, and instead of destroying them or whatever, they gave them back to this guy's father. The father gave them back to him before he moved to Nashville.
Crazy.

Yep.  Will be interesting to see if the father ends up getting prosecuted for anything.  

Been trying to figure that out myself.  TN and IL have vastly different gun laws.  He may have not violated any laws.  This is a perfect example of why we need national gun laws and not state laws.  Either way the father needs to lawyer up because he will be getting sued.

So now we should going to repeal the 10th amendment as well?

Either way, there are already tons national gun laws......the National Firearm Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the "Brady Bill", the former "Assualt Weapons Ban", etc.  How would laws have changed anything?  

IL and TN (or any states') gun laws are not that different when it comes to restrictions from mentally ill, felons, etc from possessing and the laws on prosecuting them.  IL is just a lot more restrictive when it comes to purchasing, transporting, and CCW, especially for non-residents.  In any case, they're all still covered by the same GCA, NFA, and other federal laws.

One law that is specific to IL (and I'm sure some other states) is that guns taken away from mentally unstable people can be given to a family member for "safe keeping".  Why let the family have the chances to say yea you seem fine today here are your guns back.  Now I realize he may have still gotten a gun and committed this awful act, but it would have been a lot harder and possibly prevented.

I thought that the law required that the firearms be turned in to the police or transferred to a private individual with a valid FOID.  You cannot turn them over to just any family member for "safe keeping".  If a family member has a valid FOID then they can take possession.  They cannot legally give them back unless the person regains a valid FOID.

You are correct and his father did/does have a valid FOID card.  My point was that the weapons should not be handed over to a family member rather held by the police/county/state until he was deemed "safe".

One point of agreement that I have with you. I think that most NRA members would agree with you on this one. Another point of agreement would be in the case of domestic violence arrests. In those cases the guns should be held by the authorities until after the trial or dismissal of the charges. If the wife drops the charges, I guess Darwin is at work.

billt01

johnnyp said:

Did you read the next two sentences?  You don't have to agree, but why talk in circles?

yes....and did you read my response....

Laws, Legislation, or the Government do not prevent violence. The demographic which will be impacted are the individuals who have moral standards, these are the people who don't want to be punished to their atrocities.

Legislation does not enforce moral values.




 

johnnyp

billt01 said:

johnnyp said:

Did you read the next two sentences?  You don't have to agree, but why talk in circles?

yes....and did you read my response....

Laws, Legislation, or the Government do not prevent violence. The demographic which will be impacted are the individuals who have moral standards, these are the people who don't want to be punished to their atrocities.

Legislation does not enforce moral values.




 

To be clear, you believe that in a lawless society we would have equal violence compared to current conditions?

JohnInCarolina

Good luck with this one, @johnnyp.  

billt01

johnnyp said:

billt01 said:

johnnyp said:

Did you read the next two sentences?  You don't have to agree, but why talk in circles?

yes....and did you read my response....

Laws, Legislation, or the Government do not prevent violence. The demographic which will be impacted are the individuals who have moral standards, these are the people who don't want to be punished to their atrocities.

Legislation does not enforce moral values.




 

To be clear, you believe that in a lawless society we would have equal violence compared to current conditions?

a better question what drives people to commit crimes in the first place; or better even, what drives people NOT to commit crimes?

Society, laws, or how an individual was nurtured through ones childhood?

Humans are taught right from wrong LONG before civics class...

johnnyp

billt01 said:

johnnyp said:

billt01 said:

johnnyp said:

Did you read the next two sentences?  You don't have to agree, but why talk in circles?

yes....and did you read my response....

Laws, Legislation, or the Government do not prevent violence. The demographic which will be impacted are the individuals who have moral standards, these are the people who don't want to be punished to their atrocities.

Legislation does not enforce moral values.




 

To be clear, you believe that in a lawless society we would have equal violence compared to current conditions?

a better question what drives people to commit crimes in the first place; or better even, what drives people NOT to commit crimes?

Society, laws, or how an individual was nurtured through ones childhood?

Humans are taught right from wrong LONG before civics class...

So...was that a yes or a no?

billt01

johnnyp said:

billt01 said:

johnnyp said:

billt01 said:

johnnyp said:

Did you read the next two sentences?  You don't have to agree, but why talk in circles?

yes....and did you read my response....

Laws, Legislation, or the Government do not prevent violence. The demographic which will be impacted are the individuals who have moral standards, these are the people who don't want to be punished to their atrocities.

Legislation does not enforce moral values.




 

To be clear, you believe that in a lawless society we would have equal violence compared to current conditions?

a better question what drives people to commit crimes in the first place; or better even, what drives people NOT to commit crimes?

Society, laws, or how an individual was nurtured through ones childhood?

Humans are taught right from wrong LONG before civics class...

So...was that a yes or a no?

no

JohnInCarolina

Cognitive dissonance, for the win.