All-purpose gun legislation thread


Depends, if you go to a show or something that comes around once a year you might want to stock up on deals.

Getting 2-3 of them at a show isn’t an uncommon thing by any means.


So at worst it’s an inconvenience. It’s not somehow endangering you, or infringing on your rights.


Probably? I don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other on it, though I do get the people who would. A lot of people only get their guns at gun shows, so limiting them to say one a year effectively, is going to piss them off. Not sure what the “upside” to it would be. Kind of in the “pointless regulation” camp.

Hell, taking a personal angle on it, when my dad died and we had to auction off his collection, a lot of people there bought multiple weapons. He had more guns than people who showed up (or close to it). So I’d have been kind of fucked if this was the law since I held a big auction to get rid of the things, only I couldn’t get rid of them, so I’d have gotten a lot less out of them (since once someone bought one they’d be out of the auction, thus no pressure) and I’d probably be stuck with a bunch of them.

So maybe I DO have a strong opinion on it in that light. Cause that would have sucked ass. It sucked enough as it was, but having to do it 2-3 times with tiny lots to hope to be able to get anything out of it would have been a nightmare.


I’m sorry, I thought I had wandered into an abortion debate by accident.


Oh, Timex.


They should make a Fallout 3 mod where Hillary and Obama show up periodically and take all your guns.


I guess the default argument would be to imagine the government telling you that you can only buy one video game a month.

“Who would anyone ever need to buy games faster than that?”


Yeah kind of.


I think the upside is that it would limit someone’s ability to build up a stockpile of weapons for use in a terrorist act.

I guess I don’t see firearms as toys, but rather as tools, and I don’t see them as something that I’d need a ton of.

It’s like a hammer, or a table saw. I don’t really need more than one. I certainly don’t need a new hammer more than once a month.


What if you need a hammer and a table saw for a project? Now you have to wait a month to even start.

As far as terrorist acts, they tend to build over time, so it wouldn’t really affect them much. If you planning to go shoot up a school or something, waiting a month isn’t that big of a deal. You probably had some guns before you ever made that decision anyway and if you didn’t, you can just wait a month. You’ve likely been waiting years.

Again, I think it’s a perfect example of a regulation that doesn’t do anything and could screw people over. Like myself. It probably would have cut the value we got out of my father’s estate significantly and taken years. Why? No reason really, just so someone could feel good about something that didn’t really do anything.


But what’s the analog with firearms here?
I mean, what’s the “project” you are engaged in, where you suddenly need multiple firearms?


A hunting trip?

Again, I don’t see what problem it fixes.


It’s a secret litmus test for a busy-body statist. Your approach to the hypothetical question explains a lot about how you think of fellow citizens.


A hunting trip where you suddenly need multiple new firearms?

I don’t have any fear or problem with firearms at all… I’ve grown up around them, and lots of guys I know have multiple firearms.

But still, I just don’t see the case where I’d NEED to suddenly buy multiple firearms, all at once.


If you have children, you could very well buy multiple guns at once for when they want to go hunting with you. There are a lot of legit scenarios where someone might buy more than one firearm.


I guess. It seems like an unlikely scenario, as most kids I know got their rifles at a certain age, so their siblings got theirs at different times.

Regardless, I guess I can go along with it being an unnecessary law.

I’m still kind of balking at the NRA propaganda though, depicting it as some kind of great danger to people.


Well once you hit TWO you’re in trouble. Maybe you wanted to take your son our hunting like your dad did or the like and didn’t have a shotgun, but now you can’t get two.

Again, what problem are we solving with the rule? I’m trying to appeal to your conservatism here. Restricting buying to one gun a month will have what worthwhile result?

You’re saying “how often are you going to need two or more gun purchases in a month” whereas I’d say the question is “how often is not being able to buy two or more guns in a month something that actually matters to society.”

I’ve already presented my personal experience as a real world matter that goes beyond inconvenience into the realm of “creates actual real world financial hardship.” I saved a lot of money on fees and commission because my lot was so big. With this law I would have been screwed. One big lot that doesn’t sell and doesn’t bring in anything or tons of small lots every month or so with compounding fees. This is a thing people will actually deal with quite often. People with lots of guns die. Their families have to settle the estate. It happens all the time.

Whereas the thing we’re trying to protect against happens… maybe? And the protection would have basically no effect on said thing anyway?

So we’re willing to screw regular folks over to mildly inconvenience the odd rampage shooter? Who probably already has what he needs anyway?

Edit: The more I think about it, the more it stinks of the Assault Weapons Ban. Sounds good, but realistically doesn’t do anything, while being a general pain in the ass.


Right because we don’t have twins or triplets or kids that are adopted. I certainly believe this industry needs more regulations but I don’t think the answer is to pretend that there are not legit reasons to buy multiple guns in one month.


The thread of Liberal Stupidity

I agree with that tweet from Carlos F. Martin.