I don't want private citizens (or anyone else, for that matter) "lending" (loaning, giving, selling) guns to anyone else as a way to avoid background checks.
What bothers me about Crenshaws response is that he adds no solution to the problem (typical Republican). We shouldn't be making law abiding citizens into felons over petty nuances such as lending a weapon to friend/family. Its pretty simple; If you circumvent a law (such a lending/gifting) and the person is not allowed to possess the weapon or commits a crime with said weapon, your ass is on the line.
Agree. Also disliked her response and it underlines a lot of what I find counterproductive in the far left: instead of a real teachable moment, she actually suggests his friends are literally spousal abusers. Probably not at all true but definitely won’t encourage the working relationships within our House of Reps. Just meat for her base.
We’ve had 3 cases of mass shooter getting their weapons from others buying them legally. What’s stopping the next dumbass who strawbuys an AR that’s used for a shooting saying, “I just let him borrow it”?
I'm happy to have universal background checks for the acquisition of firearms. I don't like the gunshow/private sale loophole. I wouldn't want a lending "loophole." I guess I would oppose Crenshaw on that. I take umbrage with AOC's illogical conclusion that if Dan Crenshaw is lending someone a firearm that necessarily means that person is a spousal abuser or a violent criminal or otherwise cannot pass a background check and that Dan Crenshaw "knows it". Nasty stuff. It could be Dan Crenshaw has a sister/mother/daughter (or anyone) who he thinks should have one under a particular circumstance and would otherwise be able to acquire one but that take lots of time and effort and is not expedient to the exigent circumstances. As a policy point, I don't agree with Crenshaw here but I see the reasoning. The AOC supposition is just nasty and unproductive.
This. Crenshaw is wrong, but he's expressing something a lot of gun owners see as logical: loaning a friend or family member a gun for "protection."* But AOC just demonstrates Twitter's worst quality: going for a vitriolic, exaggerated "win" with lots of retweets, instead of engaging in any sort of honest exchange. * = EDIT: I'm reminded of a time, when I still lived in Houston as a youth, and a friend (a sweet, young thing from rural, central TX) came to visit the "bit city." As soon as she arrived, she opened her purse and showed me a loaded saturday night special her dad had made her take for protection. She was already buzzed, and I thought, "holy crap, that's the most dangerous thing he could have done." She handed it to me. I showed her how the safety worked (it wasn't engaged), but then we both agreed I should just unload it. But whatever. So I have my opinions on this particular practice of us Texans.
We agree more than disagree. I am not a fan of AOC at all. She seems the reaction to trump... would prefer elected officials to work together, act professionally, don't talk in extremes. I have consistently called for reasonable gun legislation. Tougher national background checks. Longer wait periods. More info sharing between states and between states and federal. Mandatory training. Mandatory gun safe/trigger locks. Restrictions on size of magazine, types of bullets. None prevents responsible gun owners from buying or owning firearms.
I can't believe Crenshaw could possibly think that it's cool to lend your friends your guns. That's worse than the gunshow loophole. Is it also okay to lend someone your car without checking to see if they have a drivers license? Exact same logic. I had such high hopes for Crenshaw when he was elected, but he continues to disappoint. Silly me thinking he could possibly be the new face of the Republican Party.
He is another one in a list of "personalities" on both sides that have a great story and a degree of charisma.... but don't really have "it" even if they seem like they should. I have given up on candidates like this.... be it Crenshaw or AOC or Booker. Give me someone like Chris Coons. He looks like a bald Doogie Howser, he is about as exciting as a sea cucumber and he doesn't say or do outlandish things, but he is very competent, bright, able to work with people from different backgrounds and is sincere. We don't have enough people like him making high level decisions.
Yeah, I think this is perfectly demonstrated in this moronic twitter exchange between Crenshaw and AOC. They're both more alike than either one of them would like to admit. All sizzle, no steak.
if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns https://reason.com/2019/11/11/biker...-are-part-of-a-predictable-prohibition-story/
Turley on California's 'high capacity' mag ban: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/...n-californias-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/ excerpt: The point is that the vast majority of owners of LCMs are clearly using them for lawful purposes and it is not demonstrated that the magazines are a meaningful contributor to deaths from violent crime. This is an example of the unsatisfied burden for gun control advocates. They cannot pass these laws on soundbites and assumptions. They have to create a factual foundation for particular limits and why they are needed to achieve the reduction of criminality or fatalities. Instead, leading politicians just treated such reforms as self-evident and substantial limitations on gun violence. Now years later, as the outrage has subsided, the law has collapsed by its own weight. For all of the passions expressed after the horrific shootings, little effort was made to properly craft or support this new law. Even if it were sustained it would not likely have made a material difference in the actual fatalities from these crimes. Yet, politicians effectively cashed out on the wave of public emotion by citing these marginal measures as bold and impactful forms of gun control. That may be the real crime. Here is the opinion: Duncan v. Beccera opinion more at the link
It's amazing how bullheaded people are at not enforcing stricter gun laws and background checks. There is no reason for anyone other than law enforcement or military to need any type of semi-automatic type weapon. Keep your hunting rifles and pistols if you must, and if you can't protect yourself with that then maybe you need to go to a shooting range or move to a new neighborhood. Nobody with a history of assault or violence should be allowed to buy a gun. Mentally ill people should have their records made available to the system that does background checks. They shouldn't have access to guns, period. Gun purchases should not be a simple easy process.
I disagree. A psychopath, schizophrenic, or sociopath should not be carrying a gun. Call me crazy if you want, but that's my opinion. Oh, and I don't own a gun. I don't want someone with anger issues, violent behavior history, or any other mental issues carrying a gun when they don't have sound judgement. I'll add in anyone who has been fined for cruelty to animals. That's how some of those psychos start out their sick pleasures before moving on to humans. Add in parents convicted of child abuse.
