Gun Control, but not Abortion Control?

[BotanyBoy]

Your cowardice is duly noted.

Maybe if you bought a gun, you'd be braver.

What was so cowardly? I don't advocate capital punishment at all....not suddenly agreeing with it b/c you said it makes me a coward? hahaha

You really need to try harder old man, you're slipping.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Really? Good to know, I'll stand on the street corner selling glocks out of a roll around cart since there is no regulations to control the sale of guns. I'm sure law enforcement wont drag my ass off to jail....

What law prohibits one private citizen from selling a gun to another private citizen?

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Soft on crime, eh? That wussy attitude is why criminals use guns with impugnity.

No solution is 100% perfect. There have been hundreds of firearms-related deaths since Sandy Hook. Does that bother YOU?

I am not soft on crime. But sentencing a kid that brings a gun to school to death will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. And for good reason.

Does it bother me that that 700+ are dead since the shooting? Well, no. Once you deduct the suicides, gang related gun deaths (i.e. gangsters getting killed), and drug related gun deaths (i.e. drug dealers getting killed), the number is lower. And I am not one of the "death" stats.

The reality is we all go about out lives and do not even think of gun deaths until a mass shooting happens.

Hell, we forget the homeless except for 2 times per year. We have lives to live.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

What law prohibits one private citizen from selling a gun to another private citizen?

Private sales are okay. But if the number is too high in a certain period of time, then it becomes gun dealing without a license.

 

[julybaby04]

You've already told us your husband died, leaving you destitute. Assuming he had a job, your four children qualify (or at one time qualified) for social security survivor benefits, aka "government handouts".

While I can see you readily and happily denying other people's children government succor, in all truthfulness I can see you applying a different standard to your own kids. Sure, it's a double standard, but hey you're all about double standards (and the attendant hypocrisy that goes with it).

The alternative, of course, is allowing your children to suffer/go hungry in order to prove a political point, in which case you're an unfit mother.

Sooo....hypocrite or unfit mother?

I'd put money on "hypocrite".

Yes, my husband passed away. The rest....you have made up. I have never and will never discuss my financial position on here or anywhere else.

You judge things of which you have absolutely no idea of.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What law prohibits one private citizen from selling a gun to another private citizen?

Good point, we are all private citizens....I'm going to go build my gun store on wheels now b/c it's totally legal. AR 15's in stock 1400 bucks!! Glocks on sale! Every model 499!!!

Like I said, you licence the PEOPLE who are allowed to have guns and it makes allllllll this bullshit really fucking simple...you have a gun? If you have a licence cool...if not you go to jail, why fuck around with keeping track of what 4 or 5 times as many guns without knowing who or who not is supposed to have them when you can just keep track of the people who are or are not supposed to posses them with a simple ID check?

Gun registration....re-inviting the wheel of useless bureaucratic DERP.

 

[coastal-boy]

I have never and will never discuss my financial position on here or anywhere else.

So when you created a thread bitching about how your SS taxes increased from the lower 4.2% to the normal 6.2% stating how much your check decreased by, that wasn't providing "financial information"? Especially since it was very easy to work backwards and calculate your yearly salary?

 

[eyer]

Yes, my husband passed away. The rest....you have made up. I have never and will never discuss my financial position on here or anywhere else.

You judge things of which you have absolutely no idea of.

Don't sweat it, julybaby04...

...Rubsdownsouth is still feeling guilty about so casually exposing his own children to the maliciousness which lives in some on this Board and, naturally possessing that same maliciousness himself, he just needs to attack other posters' kids (without cause) to compensate for his own irresponsibility as a father.

It's called malicious projection...

...and Rubsdownsouth is a king of it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Good point, we are all private citizens....I'm going to go build my gun store on wheels now b/c it's totally legal. AR 15's in stock 1400 bucks!! Glocks on sale! Every model 499!!!

Like I said, you licence the PEOPLE who are allowed to have guns and it makes allllllll this bullshit really fucking simple...you have a gun? If you have a licence cool...if not you go to jail, why fuck around with keeping track of what 4 or 5 times as many guns without knowing who or who not is supposed to have them when you can just keep track of the people who are or are not supposed to posses them with a simple ID check?

Gun registration....re-inviting the wheel of useless bureaucratic DERP.

I'm guessing your changing the topic means there is no law that prohibits one private citizen from selling to another.

What will licensing do? Someone can go get a license, buy a gun, turn around and sell it to a criminal and there are no consequences.

 

[julybaby04]

So when you created a thread bitching about how your SS taxes increased from the lower 4.2% to the normal 6.2% stating how much your check decreased by, that wasn't providing "financial information"? Especially since it was very easy to work backwards and calculate your yearly salary?

First, I never created a thread about taxes...period. Second, yep, I said they had gone up. I didn't say how much I make. Those who were nosey about my income took it upon themselves to do that. Third, it was only to show that taxes were being affected...period.

It was a discussion on a thread, which I joined in. The rest was taken on by others who wanted to prove some sort of point, I suppose....but really just were being nosey.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm guessing your changing the topic means there is no law that prohibits one private citizen from selling to another.

What will licensing do? Someone can go get a license, buy a gun, turn around and sell it to a criminal and there are no consequences.

There isn't one...so write a ban that prohibits anything but FFL transfers if you want to stay legal. Bam there is your gun registration...every legal gun will be linked to the last owner. No one will give a fuck and it will do nothing but build up more paperwork and the left wing can enjoy it's warm fuzzy.

Licencing will do about as much as registering guns but it will be far more streamlined and simplistic for law enforcement and gun owner alike. You either went to school and have a licence or you go to jail, no exceptions.

Neither will prevent the black market...just shine a little light on it.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

There isn't one...so write a ban that prohibits anything but FFL transfers if you want to stay legal. Bam there is your gun registration...every legal gun will be linked to the last owner. No one will give a fuck and it will do nothing but build up more paperwork and the left wing can enjoy it's warm fuzzy.

Licencing will do about as much as registering guns but it will be far more streamlined and simplistic for law enforcement and gun owner alike. You either went to school and have a licence or you go to jail, no exceptions.

Neither will prevent the black market...just shine a little light on it.

Private citizens also need to do background checks.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Private citizens also need to do background checks.

No they wouldn't...FFL dealer takes care of all that and since everyone involved would want to stay law abiding licence holders in the green with the ATF, all legal gun transfers would be done via FFL licence holder.

Like I said, loop hole closed, I'm not against it as I only transfer via FFL anyhow for the legal CYA. It's worth the 40 dollar fee to not have any legal ties to a weapon I'm no longer in direct control of, sounds pretty solid to me.

I'm not morally/politically/ethically against gun registration, I just think it's making shit harder and more complicated than it needs to be. There is a certain beauty in the simplicity and clear cut directness that a unilateral federal training/education/licencing program for gun ownership for all who qualify (keeping it a freedom/right) would provide for everyone involved.

Registering gear beyond who it was sold to? OMG what a pointless logistical/paperwork fucking nightmare....

There is progress to be had for sure, but if we just keep with the left v right knee jerk tribal poo throwing contest we wont get anything productive/useful out of it. So I have low expectations for anything but a bunch of pointless bullshit political posturing legislation to come out of DC.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

Private citizens also need to do background checks.

If I remember correctly from when I posted here a few years ago, you used to complain about not enforcing laws currently on the books instead of creating new ones?

 

[Ishmael]

Can we both agree that: the first duty of government (state) is to safeguard the safety of citizen in that state?

There is no more fundamental right than that of life itself?

Gun owner ship is a derived right and NOT a fundamental right?

You see the problem here?

Woof!

This is a starting point.

The duty of the state is to safe guard the state, not the individual. There is no obligation on the part of the state to safeguard the individual at any level. The courts have ruled time and time again on this subject. Bottom line is that the individual, and the individual alone, is responsible for their own well being.

Re. military v hunting arms. The courts have ruled on this as well. In US v Miller (1939). The ruling being that the state can ban the use of NON-MILITARY type arms. The counter is that military useful arms, such as the AR-15, are perfectly within the bounds of the constitution.

The core of the issue is pretty straightforward. Those that would surrender, nay, demand that polite society surrender their ability to protect themselves from the insane and those that choose not to abide by the law versus those that see this is nothing more than another step on the road to serfdom.

There is a myth cleaved to by those on the left that once we are disarmed that somehow, miraculously, we'll become a polite society. There is no evidence to support that notion. It you want a polite society, bring back dueling. I assure you that society will become more polite within a generation.

The left is leveraging off the deaths of the innocents in CT as a rallying point in the debate. That somehow that horrific episode was a signal moment. It wasn't. The deaths of those children, as monstrous as it seems is as nothing if the trade off is essential liberty. To surrender those liberties now, over an event perpetrated by a madman, is to make worthless all of the lives spent to secure those freedoms to begin with, up to and including the abolition of slavery.

Liberty is not security, as a matter of fact it's almost the opposite. Security is not altogether different from slavery. It's a form of bondage, dependency. "I plow yo field massa, jus' keep dos bad folk from my do'." The feudal serfs used different language, but the compact was the same.

Have you failed to notice that most of those in the media that are calling for you to surrender your liberties are surrounded by paid body guards? Are they truly concerned about your well being, or their own? True altruistic crusaders live by example, not through the press.

The second amendment is the teeth that make the first amendment possible. Pan to an attorney running into the school in CT waving a paper and yelling the what the killer was doing was against the law. What a barrier that is to the criminally insane, or merely the criminal.

Take back the night. You, and only you, are there when you're being attacked. You, and only you, are capable of defending yourself, your family, in those critical moments. No criminal is going to afford you the 'time out' to use your cell phone. You are on your own and the police will show up to take statements, run out yellow crime scene tape, and do everything they can to bring your murderer to justice...................but you'll still be dead.

Are you so fearful, so desperate, to be taken care of that you are willing to not only surrender your liberty, but to demand that the liberty of others be taken away as well? And if that is the case why should anyone want to take care of you at all? You're a person to be taken advantage of, after all, you have no means of defense.

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

- H.L. Mencken


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

- Samuel Adams

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

This is a starting point.

The duty of the state is to safe guard the state, not the individual. There is no obligation on the part of the state to safeguard the individual at any level. The courts have ruled time and time again on this subject. Bottom line is that the individual, and the individual alone, is responsible for their own well being.

Re. military v hunting arms. The courts have ruled on this as well. In US v Miller (1939). The ruling being that the state can ban the use of NON-MILITARY type arms. The counter is that military useful arms, such as the AR-15, are perfectly within the bounds of the constitution.

The core of the issue is pretty straightforward. Those that would surrender, nay, demand that polite society surrender their ability to protect themselves from the insane and those that choose not to abide by the law versus those that see this is nothing more than another step on the road to serfdom.

There is a myth cleaved to by those on the left that once we are disarmed that somehow, miraculously, we'll become a polite society. There is no evidence to support that notion. It you want a polite society, bring back dueling. I assure you that society will become more polite within a generation.

The left is leveraging off the deaths of the innocents in CT as a rallying point in the debate. That somehow that horrific episode was a signal moment. It wasn't. The deaths of those children, as monstrous as it seems is as nothing if the trade off is essential liberty. To surrender those liberties now, over an event perpetrated by a madman, is to make worthless all of the lives spent to secure those freedoms to begin with, up to and including the abolition of slavery.

Liberty is not security, as a matter of fact it's almost the opposite. Security is not altogether different from slavery. It's a form of bondage, dependency. "I plow yo field massa, jus' keep dos bad folk from my do'." The feudal serfs used different language, but the compact was the same.

Have you failed to notice that most of those in the media that are calling for you to surrender your liberties are surrounded by paid body guards? Are they truly concerned about your well being, or their own? True altruistic crusaders live by example, not through the press.

The second amendment is the teeth that make the first amendment possible. Pan to an attorney running into the school in CT waving a paper and yelling the what the killer was doing was against the law. What a barrier that is to the criminally insane, or merely the criminal.

Take back the night. You, and only you, are there when you're being attacked. You, and only you, are capable of defending yourself, your family, in those critical moments. No criminal is going to afford you the 'time out' to use your cell phone. You are on your own and the police will show up to take statements, run out yellow crime scene tape, and do everything they can to bring your murderer to justice...................but you'll still be dead.

Are you so fearful, so desperate, to be taken care of that you are willing to not only surrender your liberty, but to demand that the liberty of others be taken away as well? And if that is the case why should anyone want to take care of you at all? You're a person to be taken advantage of, after all, you have no means of defense.

Ishmael

But NO ONE has asked, or is asking anyone to give up any "liberties".

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No they wouldn't...FFL dealer takes care of all that and since everyone involved would want to stay law abiding licence holders in the green with the ATF, all legal gun transfers would be done via FFL licence holder.

Like I said, loop hole closed, I'm not against it as I only transfer via FFL anyhow for the legal CYA. It's worth the 40 dollar fee to not have any legal ties to a weapon I'm no longer in direct control of, sounds pretty solid to me.

I'm not morally/politically/ethically against gun registration, I just think it's making shit harder and more complicated than it needs to be. There is a certain beauty in the simplicity and clear cut directness that a unilateral federal training/education/licencing program for gun ownership for all who qualify (keeping it a freedom/right) would provide for everyone involved.

Registering gear beyond who it was sold to? OMG what a pointless logistical/paperwork fucking nightmare....

There is progress to be had for sure, but if we just keep with the left v right knee jerk tribal poo throwing contest we wont get anything productive/useful out of it. So I have low expectations for anything but a bunch of pointless bullshit political posturing legislation to come out of DC.

Sorry, that should read private citizens should have to do background checks under law.

 

[MichaelinChina]

rattle rattle

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, my husband passed away. The rest....you have made up. I have never and will never discuss my financial position on here or anywhere else.

You judge things of which you have absolutely no idea of.

Rationalize it however you like, the fact remains that you are either a world-class hypocrite or an unfit mother.

 

[koalabear]

Can we both agree that: the first duty of government (state) is to safeguard the safety of citizen in that state?

There is no more fundamental right than that of life itself?

Gun owner ship is a derived right and NOT a fundamental right?

You see the problem here?

Woof!

So you are against abortion.

WOOF!WOOF!

 

[koalabear]

You, as ever, miss the point. (but like last time I'm sure you will continue arguing the point you don't get and avoid the point being made like the plague) However.......

The point isn’t to use it in the prosecution of a crime it is to know where the guns are, who has them an if they are being used/kept in a responsible way and to prevent them falling into the hands of criminals and the insane.

You have car registration in the US don’t you?

Woof!

Registration would not prevent that, just like it doesn't prevent it for automobiles.

WOOF!WOOF!

 

[julybaby04]

Rationalize it however you like, the fact remains that you are either a world-class hypocrite or an unfit mother.

....so happy that you have no clue about my life...or me! THAT makes me very very happy!!!!

I hope you have a truly wonderful day!

 

[koalabear]

Sorry, that should read private citizens should have to do background checks under law.

So you think private citizens should have access to the FBI computers.

 

[about_average]

Why would they do that? Because they realized even then, that Constitutional rights are arbitrary. They can come...they can go.

Actually the Bill of Rights enumerates our rights. None of them deny us rights.