PDA

View Full Version : All really strong second amendment supporters.......



Lanie
02-13-2011, 10:31 PM
I say really strong because I think second amendment supporters come in different colors. Anyway, I have some questions about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Do you favor background checks in general?

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?

Novaheart
02-13-2011, 10:39 PM
Shall not be infringed.

Rockntractor
02-13-2011, 10:43 PM
Ask Sonna from a strict gun control country if his nations laws stop criminals from getting guns.
They are criminals, why would making it hard for them to buy a gun legally keep them from getting one?
Recreational drugs are illegal do laws stop them from getting drugs, no. Laws only effect law abiding citizens.
Their business is breaking laws, where is your logic?

megimoo
02-13-2011, 11:12 PM
Ask Sonna from a strict gun control country if his nations laws stop criminals from getting guns.
They are criminals, why would making it hard for them to buy a gun legally keep them from getting one?
Recreational drugs are illegal do laws stop them from getting drugs, no. Laws only effect law abiding citizens.
Their business is breaking laws, where is your logic?All hat..no cattle !

lacarnut
02-13-2011, 11:15 PM
Ask Sonna from a strict gun control country if his nations laws stop criminals from getting guns.
They are criminals, why would making it hard for them to buy a gun legally keep them from getting one?
Recreational drugs are illegal do laws stop them from getting drugs, no. Laws only effect law abiding citizens.
Their business is breaking laws, where is your logic?

It is not the object (gun, knife, hatchet) that is the problem. It is the person using those weapons that is the problem. Only a liberal thinks otherwise. Law abiding citizens and guns mix whereas criminals and guns don't mix.

Lanie
02-13-2011, 11:20 PM
Shall not be infringed.

Thank you for answering the questions.


It is not the object (gun, knife, hatchet) that is the problem. It is the person using those weapons that is the problem. Only a liberal thinks otherwise. Law abiding citizens and guns mix whereas criminals and guns don't mix.

What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun?

lacarnut
02-13-2011, 11:32 PM
Thank you for answering the questions.



What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun?

I am for the repeal of gun laws which infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to buy guns such as the ban in DC, Chicago and other parts of the country. Do you honestly think that any law will prevent a criminal from buying a gun?????? BTW, criminals do not buy guns from their local gun dealer. They either steal them or buy them used from another individual.

Articulate_Ape
02-13-2011, 11:32 PM
Shall not be infringed.

I'd say that about covers it.

jawilljr
02-13-2011, 11:43 PM
Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

No.


Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

No.


Do you favor background checks in general?

No.


What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?

None.

A previous poster said:


Shall not be infringed.

I totally agree.

Jerry

FeebMaster
02-13-2011, 11:51 PM
Well, I wouldn't call myself a second amendment supporter, but to answer the questions:

No.
No.
No.
None or rather, repeal any law that makes it more difficult for someone to defend themselves from anyone attempting to harm them

Novaheart
02-14-2011, 12:17 AM
Thank you for answering the questions.



What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun?

The system was already in place. Felons forfeit their civil rights. To enjoy their civil rights, felons must have them restored by a court after conviction and punishment.

The gun grabbers and even some well meaning but misguided folks keep trying (and succeeding) to expand the number of people who are barred from keeping and bearing arms as well as the number of places where a person who is authorized to carry is forbidden from doing so. The latter is an attempt to end-run the Second Amendment by making it bothersome or even legally dangerous for a law abiding person to carry protection.

PoliCon
02-14-2011, 12:47 AM
I say really strong because I think second amendment supporters come in different colors. Anyway, I have some questions about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Do you favor background checks in general?

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?

If the state wants to have laws like this - their business. As for the federal government - no go. Personally I think if we would use the death penalty more - violent criminals wouldn't have the chance to even own a gun.

PoliCon
02-14-2011, 12:51 AM
The system was already in place. Felons forfeit their civil rights. To enjoy their civil rights, felons must have them restored by a court after conviction and punishment. Actually this varies by state.

Rockntractor
02-14-2011, 12:55 AM
If the state wants to have laws like this - their business. As for the federal government - no go. Personally I think if we would use the death penalty more - violent criminals wouldn't have the chance to even own a gun.

The states can't put too many stumbling blocks in the way either and recent court decisions have told them so.

txradioguy
02-14-2011, 01:02 AM
What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun?

What more can be added to the thousands of laws already on the books?

The fact of the matter is that you can not ensure only law abiding citizens have guns.

D.C. in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't even let law abiding citizens carry or own guns and yet someone still aquired a gun and held up the Deputy mayor in broad daylight while I lived there.

Pass all the restrictive laws you want...it's still not gonna stop a thug from buying a gun for $50 on the street corner.

Sonnabend
02-14-2011, 08:17 AM
What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun? There are none and I can state this with first hand experience. There is no law, no measure, no tactic that will ensure it. You would have more success with stopping the sun from rising. There is no way ever to stop criminals form getting theiur hands on whatever guns or other weapons they want. The NSW Police in a media statement admitted there was nothing they could do to stop the flow of illegal guns into this country.

In recent days, hauls of guns and drugs have been made, and the police and public know only too well that what they got was a fraction of a fraction of the guns to be had. It is public knowledge that a gun can be had, any time, anywhere, no questions asked.

No gun law anywhere will have any effect whatsoever.

I live in a nation with idiotic gun laws and we have drive by shootings and murders with guns every day of the week. None of them was with a legal firearm, none of the crimes committed were by legal gun owners

Go on Lanie, argue with me all you like. Please, be my guest. I am living proof.


Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Do you favor background checks in general?

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?Lanie, I will state the following, and quite frankly, it is the last word on the matter.

I know.

Ban all guns and pass all the restrictions you like. It will not have any effect on an armed robber who kicks down a door and rapes and murders at will.

Criminals do not abide by any law.

Ban all the guns and only the criminals will have them.

In this country, if a legal gun owner uses the gun they have (provided they can unlock the safe, get the gun, unlock the box and get the ammo, take off the trigger lock mandated by law and then load the gun..that will never happen, of course because before that, he will be dead with a massive hole between his eyes)

In the US you have the right to keep and bear arms and defend yourselves with them, here all we have is the right to get down on our knees and beg.

Here endeth the lesson.

Madisonian
02-14-2011, 08:24 AM
I say really strong because I think second amendment supporters come in different colors. Anyway, I have some questions about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Do you favor background checks in general?

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?

1) I favor as much of a wait for a background check for a Constitutionally guaranteed and protected right as the pro-choice crowd favors for abortion. After all, buying a gun doesn't automatically mean the end of a human life as abortion does.

2) What "people" have the right to know what legal items I own? Whether I own a firearm or not is as much your business as knowing who you sleep with is mine.

3) I think the NICS should be expanded to private sellers as long as the transaction remains private after that.

4) I won't go over the 20,000+ laws that are already on the books regarding guns and gun sales, but I highly doubt laws 20,001 to 25,000 will have any more effect than those already there.

FeebMaster
02-14-2011, 08:32 AM
1) I favor as much of a wait for a background check for a Constitutionally guaranteed and protected right as the pro-choice crowd favors for abortion. After all, buying a gun doesn't automatically mean the end of a human life as abortion does.

2) What "people" have the right to know what legal items I own? Whether I own a firearm or not is as much your business as knowing who you sleep with is mine.

3) I think the NICS should be expanded to private sellers as long as the transaction remains private after that.

4) I won't go over the 20,000+ laws that are already on the books regarding guns and gun sales, but I highly doubt laws 20,001 to 25,000 will have any more effect than those already there.

lol

Gingersnap
02-14-2011, 10:10 AM
To your questions, "No" and for the reasons already outlined in this thread.

I wish there was a good way to keep guns, knives, cars, rope, duct tape, poison, and baseball bats out of the hands of criminals who would use those things against honest citizens but I have no idea how to do that.

Criminals aren't interested in gun control laws. Most of them never suffer a background check of any kind. They don't take gun safety classes. They don't inform their insurance companies about gun purchases. The only purpose for gun control laws is to inflict harsher sentences on the criminals who get caught. They don't prevent any crimes.

The best way to prevent gun crime is to let the criminals know that some people will shoot back.

Apache
02-14-2011, 10:56 AM
What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun?

In all the history ( and I mean history) where has one law stopped a criminal? I'm not being snide, snarky or demeaning. Think about how many murders, thefts, rapes and on have been committed throughout history, even though there were laws in place to punish such actions.

What brings you to ask this question anyway?

Zafod
02-14-2011, 11:30 AM
My house was robbed this weekend. They were after my guns... they could not get them out of the safe so they got pissed and trashed my house. To the point of trashing my little boys bedroom and all his toys....


They dont buy guns, they steal them.....

NJCardFan
02-14-2011, 12:24 PM
Thank you for answering the questions.



What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun?

Um, you already can't buy a gun if you have a violent crime on your jacket. But this is where the naiveté of those who want a repeal of the 2nd amendment and stricter gun control get it wrong. It's not like street gangs go to their local gun shop and but their gats. Stricter gun laws only infringe on law abiding citizens. And as I'm fond of saying, an armed society is a polite society.

AmPat
02-14-2011, 04:59 PM
Liberals generally want to do a One size fits all, or ineffective and overly expensive solution to every problem. The typical liberal answer to their unresonable aversion to guns is to make it an ineffective government boondogle whereby all have to register and be vetted.

I have a better solution. If you liberals love lists and registrations so much, make it mandatory to be put on a no gun list for your voting population. You know, the criminals and crazies? They are the problem, not guns.

I heard a story on the radio of a guy caught after killing 4 people in 72 hours. His fifth target was told "you are going to die" before the attack. He suffered serious slashing cuts from the murder weapon before overcomming his attacker.

To date; No liberal hand-wringing or protests demanding waiting periods for knife purchases. :confused::rolleyes:

Oh, didi I mention this guy was crazy?:cool:

Sonnabend
02-14-2011, 05:15 PM
Gun control does not work. End of story.

Well Lanie? Going to answer? Or going to be another poop and scoot liberal?

Lanie
02-14-2011, 05:24 PM
I am for the repeal of gun laws which infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to buy guns such as the ban in DC, Chicago and other parts of the country. Do you honestly think that any law will prevent a criminal from buying a gun?????? BTW, criminals do not buy guns from their local gun dealer. They either steal them or buy them used from another individual.


I'd say that about covers it.


No.



No.



No.



None.

A previous poster said:



I totally agree.

Jerry


Well, I wouldn't call myself a second amendment supporter, but to answer the questions:

No.
No.
No.
None or rather, repeal any law that makes it more difficult for someone to defend themselves from anyone attempting to harm them


The system was already in place. Felons forfeit their civil rights. To enjoy their civil rights, felons must have them restored by a court after conviction and punishment.

The gun grabbers and even some well meaning but misguided folks keep trying (and succeeding) to expand the number of people who are barred from keeping and bearing arms as well as the number of places where a person who is authorized to carry is forbidden from doing so. The latter is an attempt to end-run the Second Amendment by making it bothersome or even legally dangerous for a law abiding person to carry protection.


To your questions, "No" and for the reasons already outlined in this thread.

I wish there was a good way to keep guns, knives, cars, rope, duct tape, poison, and baseball bats out of the hands of criminals who would use those things against honest citizens but I have no idea how to do that.

Criminals aren't interested in gun control laws. Most of them never suffer a background check of any kind. They don't take gun safety classes. They don't inform their insurance companies about gun purchases. The only purpose for gun control laws is to inflict harsher sentences on the criminals who get caught. They don't prevent any crimes.

The best way to prevent gun crime is to let the criminals know that some people will shoot back.

Well Rock, you asked me to prove my accusation and I have.

Oh, and Nova, having laws prohibiting criminals from buying guns is dumb is we're not going to make sure they're not criminals. Seriously, it's just plain dumb.

Lanie
02-14-2011, 05:24 PM
My house was robbed this weekend. They were after my guns... they could not get them out of the safe so they got pissed and trashed my house. To the point of trashing my little boys bedroom and all his toys....


They dont buy guns, they steal them.....

You should have shot them.

Okay, I'm kidding.

Sorry about your house. :(

Lanie
02-14-2011, 05:26 PM
Gun control does not work. End of story.

Well Lanie? Going to answer? Or going to be another poop and scoot liberal?

I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.

Sonnabend
02-14-2011, 05:42 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/passenger-shot-while-sitting-in-back-of-van-20110215-1atwp.html


Three men were sitting in a van at the intersection of Cowpasture Road and Camden Valley Way, Leppington, about 1.15am today, when shots were fired into the vehicle, police said.

A 40-year-old man was struck in the abdomen. The men then drove the van to nearby Heath Road, Inspector Tetley said. "The victims drove there, just away from where the shooting was to seek refuge. "They just tried to get away from there and they just stopped ... and called the police."

The injured man was taken to hospital, where he remains in a stable condition. The other men in the van were not injured, police said.A Herald photographer said the green-coloured van was "peppered with holes".

Inspector Tetley said police were looking for a white Subaru in connection with the incident.Anyone with information is asked to


I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Seeing as the "protective measures" dont work, I agree with them.

Gun control does not work.

Yes or no Lanie?

Gingersnap
02-14-2011, 05:45 PM
Well Rock, you asked me to prove my accusation and I have.


What was your accusation?

djones520
02-14-2011, 05:45 PM
I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.

Doesn't quite work like that Laney. I spent 6 months "illegally" owning a gun when I first moved to Illinois. Took the state that long to give me "permission" to possess my fire arms. A military service member with not so much as a parking ticket in his entire life.

fettpett
02-14-2011, 05:47 PM
I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.

show me where a gun law has stopped someone from obtaining a gun and committing a crime with it.

Then go do some reading on Nazi Germany and how they kowtowed the Jews after they took their guns away from them

Madisonian
02-14-2011, 06:03 PM
I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.

Tell me you are not that ignorant.
You asked 4 biased questions and then proclaim "many" do not support *any* type of protective measures.

This thread is useless as a measure of anything other than proving to you your own preconceived misconceptions and lack of knowledge or understanding of existing firearms law.

Kay
02-14-2011, 07:45 PM
My house was robbed this weekend. They were after my guns... they could not get them out of the safe so they got pissed and trashed my house. To the point of trashing my little boys bedroom and all his toys....

They dont buy guns, they steal them.....

That's horrible! I hope they catch them.
I also hope that it didn't traumatize your son too bad. :(

NJCardFan
02-14-2011, 08:31 PM
I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.
So, you think only crimes are committed with guns? Do you know how stupid that sounds? The causes of death in 6 of 7 of the Manson murders was by stabbing rather than shooting(Seibring and Frykowski were both shot but the official cause of death on each was due to multiple stab wounds(see the death certificates here (http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/t/tate/tate_murders.htm))). But let me ask you, do strict gun laws protect me or the criminals?

AmPat
02-14-2011, 09:28 PM
So, you think only crimes are committed with guns? Do you know how stupid that sounds? The causes of death in 6 of 7 of the Manson murders was by stabbing rather than shooting(Seibring and Frykowski were both shot but the official cause of death on each was due to multiple stab wounds(see the death certificates here (http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/t/tate/tate_murders.htm))). But let me ask you, do strict gun laws protect me or the criminals?

That was the point I was trying to demonstrate with my post. The crazy guy already killed 4 people and then went after a fifth. The last guy subdued him but was slashed badly. So far, no knife laws or waiting list demands from horrified liberals.:rolleyes:

FeebMaster
02-14-2011, 10:05 PM
I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.


I wouldn't hold up CU as the norm for second amendment advocates. CU is ridiculously pro-gun, even compared to other nominally conservative sites. The CU of today is arguably more pro-gun than the CU of 5 years ago. Plus, a fair minority of the people who responded in this thread are anarchists.

The overwhelming majority of self described 2nd amendment advocates love the idea of "proving you're one of the good guys" to the government in some vain attempt to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the other gun laws most of them support.

Chuck58
02-14-2011, 10:36 PM
I say really strong because I think second amendment supporters come in different colors. Anyway, I have some questions about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Do you favor background checks in general?

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."

Waiting periods = infringement
Registration = infringement
background checks = I accept the current system. Takes about a minute.

Nothing else is needed.

Here, in New Mexico, there are no gun laws other than Federal. I buy my guns from private individuals. No paperwork, no waiting period, no registration, no BS. That's how it ought to be everywhere. Govt has no need to know what I purchase, whether it's a firearm or a pair of boots.

lacarnut
02-14-2011, 10:52 PM
What was your accusation?

She does not know. Making up shit seems like her liberal mindset though.

patriot45
02-14-2011, 11:35 PM
I wouldn't hold up CU as the norm for second amendment advocates. CU is ridiculously pro-gun, even compared to other nominally conservative sites. The CU of today is arguably more pro-gun than the CU of 5 years ago. Plus, a fair minority of the people who responded in this thread are anarchists.

The overwhelming majority of self described 2nd amendment advocates love the idea of "proving you're one of the good guys" to the government in some vain attempt to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the other gun laws most of them support.

Thank you!

:D

Sonnabend
02-15-2011, 06:07 AM
Lanie: please post proof that gun control has any effect whatsoever on the ability of criminals to be armed whenever they want.

Post proof.

Jfor
02-15-2011, 08:39 AM
I say really strong because I think second amendment supporters come in different colors. Anyway, I have some questions about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Do you favor background checks in general?

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?

From US vs Miller:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

IMO the only check should be if someone is a felon. All gun laws should go away right now.

Odysseus
02-15-2011, 11:56 AM
I say really strong because I think second amendment supporters come in different colors. Anyway, I have some questions about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?
No. Instantaneous background checks are available in all fifty states (or all fifty-seven according to Obama). The original argument for the waiting period was that it also gave a "cooling down" period, on the assumption that prospective gun buyers might calm down and not take their newly purchased gun out and blow away the neighbor's dog for crapping on their lawn, or the neighbor, for that matter. It's based on the liberal inability to think like anyone but a liberal, and that anyone purchasing a gun intends to use it to settle a grudge, commit a violent act or otherwise breach the peace. They ignored the fact that those who seek to buy guns legally are the ones who are, by their very nature, law-abiding, hence their compliance with the law. And here are a few other arguments against waiting periods:


We are told that waiting periods will prevent crimes of passion, yet we are not told that those same waiting periods can threaten honest people’s safety. Furthermore, there are still questions about the benefits of waiting periods. In an Op-Ed article written for CBS News, Dr. John Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, states,


“I have found, in the only research done on this question, that the Brady Law’s national waiting periods had no impact on murder or robbery, but slightly increased rape and aggravated assault rates by a few percent. Thus, for two crime categories, the major effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women.”

Waiting periods extend a potential victim's “period of vulnerability,” sometimes with tragic consequences. For example, in 1991 Wisconsin resident Bonnie Elmasri, seeking to purchase a firearm for protection from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her, was told she would have to wait 48 hours to obtain the weapon. Unfortunately, 48 hours was too long to wait; the abusive husband killed Bonnie and her two children the next day.

Waiting periods also force potential victims to rely on stalking laws and restraining orders for protection. It has been shown time and again that individuals intent on inflicting great bodily harm do not consider the potential consequences of violating a court order or stalking law to be an unacceptable risk. And law enforcement institutions certainly don’t have the capabilities to provide 24-hour coverage to ensure a court order is enforced. Clearly, “pieces of paper” issued by a court or created in legislative proceedings are not suitable substitutes when it comes to self-defense.

Terry Jackson of Albany, Georgia, fearing for her life, swore out arrest warrants for an abusive former boyfriend who had stalked and assaulted her. Finding little comfort in relying on the warrants, the mother of five purchased a pistol from a pawnshop. Less than 12 hours later, she shot and killed the ex-boyfriend as he tried to break into her home. The shooting was ruled a clear-cut case of self-defense.

Similarly, Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross purchased a gun as a result of threats and previous assaults from a fellow Marine under orders to stay away from her. Just three days after purchasing the weapon, Cpl. Ross fatally shot the man after he broke through a door and rushed into her bedroom brandishing a bayonet. Had Cpl. Ross been subject to a waiting period, she might not be alive today.

Fortunately, Cpl. Ross and Ms. Jackson did not have to rely on “pieces of paper” while waiting for a “cooling off period” to pass.


Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?
No. Registration has preceded confiscation too many times. Government cannot be trusted with that information.


Do you favor background checks in general?
Yes. If we are going to prevent certain people from buying guns, and by that, I mean those who are convicted felons or who have a documented mental instability that has resulted in their being presumed to be a threat if they are armed, then we have to do background checks.


What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?
How about enforcing the law? As I wrote in another thread:


Jared Loughner, who should have tripped every alarm in the system, as he was "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" and should have "been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution" due to his behavior (which the sheriff had prior knowledge of), was able to buy a gun.

Also, the numbers are telling in another way. From Wikipedia's article:

From 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials[18]. In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.[19]

Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only 7 individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected
So, out of 1.8 million denials, 69% were the result of felons or fugitives from justice attempting to illegally purchase weapons, or 1.242 million, roughly 89,000 per year, and yet, in the first year of the act, there were 250 cases referred for prosecution, or 0.0028% of the felons and fugitives, of whom fewer than 7, or 0.0000784% of the total number denied, were convicted. Anyone else feel safer?

If 89,000 felons or fugitives sought to purchase guns, then there should have been a lot more prosecutions under the Brady Act. I realize that the current administration has other priorities for the Justice Dept. (like not prosecuting the Black Panthers, or suing Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws), but maybe the most anti-gun administration since the Clintons just might find time in its busy schedule to enforce a law that they would have fought for in the first place?:rolleyes:

I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.
Oh, boy! A "gotcha" thread whose sole purpose was to "prove" that we Second Amendment supporters are reckless gun nuts. :rolleyes:

How about a thread at DU on under what circumstances liberals will permit gun ownership?

Gingersnap
02-15-2011, 12:40 PM
I wouldn't hold up CU as the norm for second amendment advocates. CU is ridiculously pro-gun, even compared to other nominally conservative sites. The CU of today is arguably more pro-gun than the CU of 5 years ago. Plus, a fair minority of the people who responded in this thread are anarchists.

The overwhelming majority of self described 2nd amendment advocates love the idea of "proving you're one of the good guys" to the government in some vain attempt to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the other gun laws most of them support.

Well, anarcho-capitalists. :p

Novaheart
02-15-2011, 01:39 PM
I wouldn't hold up CU as the norm for second amendment advocates. CU is ridiculously pro-gun, even compared to other nominally conservative sites. The CU of today is arguably more pro-gun than the CU of 5 years ago. Plus, a fair minority of the people who responded in this thread are anarchists.

The overwhelming majority of self described 2nd amendment advocates love the idea of "proving you're one of the good guys" to the government in some vain attempt to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the other gun laws most of them support.

I am not an anarchist. I just paid about $200 for the privilege of exercising my right to keep and bear arms for the next 7 years. I shouldn't have had to do that, nor should I have to stay atit of the gun laws of every state I might drive through. Hell, it's bad enough that I have to pay $12 to go target shooting when we have perfectly good busses.

Apache
02-15-2011, 01:59 PM
I made this thread for one purpose and one purpose only. It was to prove that many of the so called second amendment advocates do not support *any* type of protective measure in place. This thread proved it. My task is over. Nova said he supported laws saying criminals can't buy a gun, but that's sort of lame if we're not going to make sure they're not criminals.

Truth is if one is a law abiding citizen, then they should have no problem accessing a gun.

So you intentionally made a thread with your bias built in. Then you gloss over other factors raised in the same thread. This thread proves nothing on your point, nothing other than your bias against guns...


Care to be a little more honest?

Lanie
02-15-2011, 11:25 PM
What was your accusation?

That a lot of the people who argue strongly for the second amendment often do not agree with any legal protective measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Some are for laws that say criminals can't have a gun, but it's really not a law worth having if we're not going to make sure people aren't criminals.

Rockntractor
02-15-2011, 11:29 PM
That a lot of the people who argue strongly for the second amendment often do not agree with any legal protective measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Some are for laws that say criminals can't have a gun, but it's really not a law worth having if we're not going to make sure people aren't criminals.

How can you make sure someone is not a criminal?

PoliCon
02-15-2011, 11:55 PM
How can you make sure someone is not a criminal?

BINGO! Best you can do is hope to prevent someone who has been caught at criminal activity from purchasing a 'legal' gun.

Sonnabend
02-16-2011, 03:39 AM
Lanie

Address this please. From someone who lives under way more restrictive gun laws than you ever will.


What measures do you support for ensuring that only law abiding citizens can buy a gun?


There are none and I can state this with first hand experience. There is no law, no measure, no tactic that will ensure it. You would have more success with stopping the sun from rising. There is no way ever to stop criminals form getting theiur hands on whatever guns or other weapons they want. The NSW Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSW_Police) in a media statement admitted there was nothing they could do to stop the flow of illegal guns into this country.

In recent days, hauls of guns and drugs have been made, and the police and public know only too well that what they got was a fraction of a fraction of the guns to be had. It is public knowledge that a gun can be had, any time, anywhere, no questions asked.

No gun law anywhere will have any effect whatsoever.

I live in a nation with idiotic gun laws and we have drive by shootings and murders with guns every day of the week. None of them was with a legal firearm, none of the crimes committed were by legal gun owners

Go on Lanie, argue with me all you like. Please, be my guest. I am living proof.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Didnt stop a two time convicted armed robber form getting his hands on a shotgun and murdering the woman next door

We already do these. Doesnt make any difference. Criminals dont buy guns legally, they get them illegally, up to and including, I shit you not, rocket launchers

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Already done here. The population lives under heavy restrictions where the legal guin owner has to kleep the gun and ammo locked up and under a trigger lock. The criminal walks up to a man in a pub or elsewhere and hands over his cash.

Do you favor background checks in general?

Doesnt work.Gun laws affect only the law abiding. No one else.

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?
Lanie, I will state the following, and quite frankly, it is the last word on the matter.

I know.

Ban all guns and pass all the restrictions you like. It will not have any effect on an armed robber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_robber) who kicks down a door and rapes and murders at will.

Criminals do not abide by any law.

Ban all the guns and only the criminals will have them.

In this country, if a legal gun owner uses the gun they have (provided they can unlock the safe, get the gun, unlock the box and get the ammo, take off the trigger lock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_lock) mandated by law and then load the gun..that will never happen, of course because before that, he will be dead with a massive hole between his eyes)

In the US you have the right to keep and bear arms and defend yourselves with them, here all we have is the right to get down on our knees and beg.I am sick and tired of liberals who don't listen. I speak from experience.

Answer me.

Apache
02-16-2011, 09:18 AM
That a lot of the people who argue strongly for the second amendment often do not agree with any legal protective measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Some are for laws that say criminals can't have a gun, but it's really not a law worth having if we're not going to make sure people aren't criminals.

What do you propose Lanie? What gun law that is not on the books now would you enact?

AmPat
02-16-2011, 09:50 AM
Lanie,

1. If a person is caught murdering someone, and it is found that they had committed murder before, then no existing gun law prevented the subsequent murder. Apparently the criminal didn't respect the law. Weird huh?

2. If a person commits a murder with a gun and it was his first, the murder was not prevented by ANY existing gun law as the murderer was "cleared" when he bought the gun.

Now what other gun laws would you enact to add to the 20,000 plus already on the books that would prevent either of the two examples I posted?

Odysseus
02-16-2011, 10:15 AM
What do you propose Lanie? What gun law that is not on the books now would you enact?

<Liberal Mode On> Like, okay... first, when people go to buy a handgun, there should be, like, a waiting period so that they can cool off, or whoever is threatening them can cool off. There should also be, like, social workers available to chill everyone out, and maybe offer some support and make sure that everyone knows that they are cared for and loved and stuff... And maybe the gun shops can pipe in some mellow music over their loudspeakers, instead of that thrash metal that they always play whenever they show one on Law and Order. Oh, and they should give out chocolate with the guns. Nobody can stay angry when they have chocolate! <Liberal Mode Off>

I have to stop doing that. Thinking like a liberal makes me feel like I need to pee sitting down.

Gingersnap
02-16-2011, 10:34 AM
That a lot of the people who argue strongly for the second amendment often do not agree with any legal protective measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Some are for laws that say criminals can't have a gun, but it's really not a law worth having if we're not going to make sure people aren't criminals.

We can never make sure people aren't criminals. Criminals intend to break the law and no law can detect or prevent intention. Likewise, somebody convicted of burglary who has served his sentence and gone on to other law-abiding things may be perfectly safe with a collection of 20 firearms.

The fallacy you may be working from is that gun control laws are a deterrent. So far, that hasn't been established. A lot of violent crime is opportunistic so the criminal doesn't actually put a lot of thought into decision ahead of time. Gun-control does prevent some people from using guns in suicides but people with serious suicide plans manage to kill themselves easily without guns (see U.K. suicide stats). People who are interested in making suicide gestures never use guns or tall buildings; they cut themselves or use pills (a few use strangulation methods but always with an "out").

The police and government can't protect you in an emergency - they are not legally obliged to even try. You are on your own. As a woman, you have to be painfully aware that any angry 15 year old boy can kick your ass in under 3 minutes. Your only hope would be technology or the threat of technology. Even then, you would have to have access to it and being willing to use it. However, a lot of interpersonal violence against women is very personal so you would probably have enough warning to become armed. ;)

dixierat
02-16-2011, 11:51 AM
That a lot of the people who argue strongly for the second amendment often do not agree with any legal protective measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Some are for laws that say criminals can't have a gun, but it's really not a law worth having if we're not going to make sure people aren't criminals.

Criminals can and will always be able to acquire weapons. Why should we check to see if a person making a weapons purchase is a criminal?

Laws that WILL have a positive effect on gun crime are severe punishment for using a gun in a crime. Florida has a 10/20/Life law, but I'd go further. make it more like 20/40/Death by hanging for gun crimes. Automatic DP for a gun crime where someone is injured or killed in the commission of the crime.

Anything else is just feel good stuff that encumbers good citizens.

:cool:

Apache
02-16-2011, 12:39 PM
<Liberal Mode On> Like, okay... first, when people go to buy a handgun, there should be, like, a waiting period so that they can cool off, or whoever is threatening them can cool off. There should also be, like, social workers available to chill everyone out, and maybe offer some support and make sure that everyone knows that they are cared for and loved and stuff... And maybe the gun shops can pipe in some mellow music over their loudspeakers, instead of that thrash metal that they always play whenever they show one on Law and Order. Oh, and they should give out chocolate with the guns. Nobody can stay angry when they have chocolate! <Liberal Mode Off>

I have to stop doing that. Thinking like a liberal makes me feel like I need to pee sitting down.

alrighty then... umm...uh.... I gotta find those IQ points I lost reading that...:eek:


Are you a member of DAG?

Madisonian
02-16-2011, 12:47 PM
Um, hate to break it to you folks, but with the obscene number of federal, state and local laws that have been written by our elected officials over the last century, we are almost all criminals in some way, shape or form.

Odysseus
02-16-2011, 01:58 PM
We can never make sure people aren't criminals. Criminals intend to break the law and no law can detect or prevent intention. Likewise, somebody convicted of burglary who has served his sentence and gone on to other law-abiding things may be perfectly safe with a collection of 20 firearms.
This is very true, but the past is generally a good predictor of the future, so a person with a history of violent felonies is more likely to engage in one than a person who has never demonstrated that inclination. The gun control law won't deter the felon, at best, it will delay the implementation of his next crime, but it will disarm his intended victims, which will faclitate it. The burglar has committed his crime and served his time, but that doesn't mean that he's entitled to a clean slate. His actions have consequences.


Criminals can and will always be able to acquire weapons. Why should we check to see if a person making a weapons purchase is a criminal?
Because it will make it more difficult for criminals to acquire them, and it will make it easier to add time to their sentences when they violate the law by doing so. The potential violations of a law do not mean that the law should not be in place.


Laws that WILL have a positive effect on gun crime are severe punishment for using a gun in a crime. Florida has a 10/20/Life law, but I'd go further. make it more like 20/40/Death by hanging for gun crimes. Automatic DP for a gun crime where someone is injured or killed in the commission of the crime.
QFT

Anything else is just feel good stuff that encumbers good citizens.

:cool:
Liberals don't want citizens, they want serfs who will obey their edicts. They don't care if a neighborhood is a deadly, blighted hellhole so long as they get reelected or their shows get renewed.

alrighty then... umm...uh.... I gotta find those IQ points I lost reading that...:eek:
Are you a member of DAG?
DAG?
Dag: a clump of feces stuck to the wool of a sheep, also used in Australia as a term of friendly abuse


Um, hate to break it to you folks, but with the obscene number of federal, state and local laws that have been written by our elected officials over the last century, we are almost all criminals in some way, shape or form.
I swear that the tag was gone before I took the mattress home from the store, officer!!!:eek:

Apache
02-16-2011, 02:43 PM
DAG?




Yes DAG...


Devil's
Advocate
General



:D

Odysseus
02-16-2011, 04:42 PM
Yes DAG...


Devil's
Advocate
General



:D

Ah... No. I am not a lawyer. My parents were married and neither of them was a demon.

But, since it applies to lawyers, I think that the Australian definition of dag is appropriate. :D

Lanie
02-16-2011, 07:22 PM
Lanie,

If a person is caught murdering someone, and it is found that they had committed murder before, then no gun law prevented the subsequent murder. Apparently the criminal didn't respect the law. Weird huh?

If a person commits a murder with a gun and it was his first, the murder was not by ANY existing gun law as the murderer was "cleared" when he bought the gun. Now what other gun laws would you enact to add to the 20,000 plus already on the books that would prevent either of the two examples I posted?

But aren't people like yourself wanting the other 20,000 laws removed? I think that point is moot.

Let's look at people's logic and apply it elsewhere.

It is illegal for minors to own a gun.
Some kids still got their hands on guns and used them.
Therefore, it is pointless to make sure the kids are eighteen before selling them a gun because these kids don't respect the law to begin with.

It is illegal for kids to smoke cigarettes and to buy tobacco.
Several kids start using tobacco as minors.
These kids obviously don't care about the law.
Therefore, we should stop carding people in the stores because many of these kids will get their hands on tobacco anyway.

I'm not convinced that the gun laws are completely ineffective. You speak about crime. I'd like to see data on people who tried to buy guns, but couldn't and didn't bother to take it any further. There's no evidence that all non-reformed convicts are going after the guns.

Lanie
02-16-2011, 07:25 PM
Okay, lame analogy, but here it goes.

In retail, retailers are trained to greet people, rotate around the store, and offer to help. This is NOT just customer courtesy. It's meant to prevent shoplifting. However, shoplifting still happens everyday. Obviously, some people are taking the chance of being caught despite the preventive measures. The retailers are still told to do this though because it supposedly has been shown to prevent shoplifting. The idea is that if a potential shoplifter knows that you recognize her/him, then he/she is less likely to get up the nerve to steal.

So how can we be sure that gun laws don't work the same way?

Apache
02-16-2011, 07:37 PM
Okay, lame analogy, but here it goes.

In retail, retailers are trained to greet people, rotate around the store, and offer to help. This is NOT just customer courtesy. It's meant to prevent shoplifting. However, shoplifting still happens everyday. Obviously, some people are taking the chance of being caught despite the preventive measures. The retailers are still told to do this though because it supposedly has been shown to prevent shoplifting. The idea is that if a potential shoplifter knows that you recognize her/him, then he/she is less likely to get up the nerve to steal.

So how can we be sure that gun laws don't work the same way?

Because if they did the criminal wouldn't have a gun? Simple, RIGHT?

There are some ex-cons who will not try to obtain a weapon because the law prohibits them from ownership. Guess what, they aren't breaking th law! WOW! Right?

There are others who don't give two shits about the law and will obtain firearms ILLEGALLY...WOW! Right?

So now, who are you truly burdening with ANOTHER law?

djones520
02-16-2011, 07:41 PM
But aren't people like yourself wanting the other 20,000 laws removed? I think that point is moot.

Let's look at people's logic and apply it elsewhere.

It is illegal for minors to own a gun.
Some kids still got their hands on guns and used them.
Therefore, it is pointless to make sure the kids are eighteen before selling them a gun because these kids don't respect the law to begin with.

It is illegal for kids to smoke cigarettes and to buy tobacco.
Several kids start using tobacco as minors.
These kids obviously don't care about the law.
Therefore, we should stop carding people in the stores because many of these kids will get their hands on tobacco anyway.

I'm not convinced that the gun laws are completely ineffective. You speak about crime. I'd like to see data on people who tried to buy guns, but couldn't and didn't bother to take it any further. There's no evidence that all non-reformed convicts are going after the guns.


Lanie, in response to your analogy about cigarrettes, and minors... well case in point, the law doesn't work. If a minor wants cigarrettes he will get them. Everyone of my friends in high school were nearly a pack a day smokers. Not one of them was 18. That law did nothing to stop them from acquiring the cigarrettes.

NJCardFan
02-16-2011, 08:40 PM
The cigarette analogy was nothing more than this:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Strawman-motivational.jpg


Here's why. You just can't walk into a corner store and buy a gun. You just can't. And any reputable dealer who'd like to stay out of jail would never sell a weapon to a minor. If a clerk at a 7-11 sells a pack of cigarettes to a minor, there is no jail time involved if the minor is caught with them and more realistically, it's not like they can trace where a pack of smokes was bought. Can't say that about a gun. As for minors getting hold of guns, kind of blows a hole in your argument, no? They got their hands on it anyway. All the strict laws on the planet didn't stop it. So, what's your solution, no guns for anyone?

patriot45
02-16-2011, 10:22 PM
But aren't people like yourself wanting the other 20,000 laws removed? I think that point is moot.

Let's look at people's logic and apply it elsewhere.

It is illegal for minors to own a gun.
Some kids still got their hands on guns and used them.
Therefore, it is pointless to make sure the kids are eighteen before selling them a gun because these kids don't respect the law to begin with.

It is illegal for kids to smoke cigarettes and to buy tobacco.
Several kids start using tobacco as minors.
These kids obviously don't care about the law.
Therefore, we should stop carding people in the stores because many of these kids will get their hands on tobacco anyway.

I'm not convinced that the gun laws are completely ineffective. You speak about crime. I'd like to see data on people who tried to buy guns, but couldn't and didn't bother to take it any further. There's no evidence that all non-reformed convicts are going after the guns.


This thread calls for porn!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/TRU%20BLOODY/HPIM1565.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/TRU%20BLOODY/HPIM1564.jpg
Aaah, logic and a liberal! Can't mix it. I have a concealed carry permit, if I want to buy a gun off an authorized dealer I can walk out with it right there, whether I am mad or not! It wouldn't matter anyway since I have a boatload of guns at home anyway. But now we come to the crux of the matter! I am not a criminal or an insano!
Can you see the diff?
Law abiders can and do buy any guns we want and do not cause crimes but... criminals do!

Wanna know why?..... Because they are criminals!

I would rather have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it!

BTW, that Grendel 6.5 is for sale!
Any libs wanta shot at it!?:D

Rockntractor
02-16-2011, 10:44 PM
Ruger #3 45-70 with sightron red dot.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/001-3.jpg

Rockntractor
02-16-2011, 10:45 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/2-2.jpg

patriot45
02-16-2011, 10:49 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/2-2.jpg

:D

RobJohnson
02-17-2011, 12:20 AM
It is not the object (gun, knife, hatchet) that is the problem. It is the person using those weapons that is the problem. Only a liberal thinks otherwise. Law abiding citizens and guns mix whereas criminals and guns don't mix.

True.

People have been killing people with other objects long before guns.

They used nails on Jesus...should we outlaw nails?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdIBZWhzO8

Rockntractor
02-17-2011, 12:22 AM
True.

People have been killing people with other objects long before guns.

They used nails on Jesus...should we outlaw nails?

It would be hammers if they are consistent.

RobJohnson
02-17-2011, 12:23 AM
It would be hammers if they are consistent.

I added a video to my post....

Lanie
02-17-2011, 07:26 AM
Lanie, in response to your analogy about cigarrettes, and minors... well case in point, the law doesn't work. If a minor wants cigarrettes he will get them. Everyone of my friends in high school were nearly a pack a day smokers. Not one of them was 18. That law did nothing to stop them from acquiring the cigarrettes.

Thank you for answering that unlike the others. Suppose somebody suggested that we get rid of the law prohibiting minors from smoking, buying guns, etc due to this reason. Would you support it?

fettpett
02-17-2011, 08:03 AM
Thank you for answering that unlike the others. Suppose somebody suggested that we get rid of the law prohibiting minors from smoking, buying guns, etc due to this reason. Would you support it?

You do know that minors can OWN guns in most states. They just can't buy them. 99% of them actually know how to properly handle and care for their guns as do most gun owners, and there are very few accident's where a kid will shoot and/or kill another kid or adult.

The problem with having prohibitive rules about buying things like cigarettes and alcohol is that those under the prohibitive age will get them regardless, and it's usually the parents or older friend or sibling that buys the stuff for them. Most people I know do or did this stuff for fun because they were prohibited from doing it, and they have almost all said it's not as fun nor do they drink as much because it's legal for them to do now.

FeebMaster
02-17-2011, 10:10 AM
Thank you for answering that unlike the others. Suppose somebody suggested that we get rid of the law prohibiting minors from smoking, buying guns, etc due to this reason. Would you support it?

I for one am perfectly comfortable with the idea of a twelve year old girl walking into her local hardware store, slapping some cash down on the counter, and then, no questions asked, wheeling a belt fed machine gun and a few cases of ammo home in her radio flyer.

The mere thought of it warms the cockles of my heart.

Gingersnap
02-17-2011, 10:22 AM
Thank you for answering that unlike the others. Suppose somebody suggested that we get rid of the law prohibiting minors from smoking, buying guns, etc due to this reason. Would you support it?

No, probably not but here's why:

Minors in our society are considered to be incapable of exercising mature judgment (except when it comes to abortion). They can't enter into contracts, they can't take work over a certain number of hours without parental or court permission, they can't marry without permission, they can't enter the armed forces, they can't take out credit or loans, and they can't determine their own medical, educational, or legal treatment without permission from parents or permission from the courts. (The exception, again, is some reproductive/abortion decision-making.)

Minors and mentally incompetent adults are always the exception to discussions about liberty.

Lanie
02-17-2011, 11:18 PM
No, probably not but here's why:

Minors in our society are considered to be incapable of exercising mature judgment (except when it comes to abortion). They can't enter into contracts, they can't take work over a certain number of hours without parental or court permission, they can't marry without permission, they can't enter the armed forces, they can't take out credit or loans, and they can't determine their own medical, educational, or legal treatment without permission from parents or permission from the courts. (The exception, again, is some reproductive/abortion decision-making.)

Minors and mentally incompetent adults are always the exception to discussions about liberty.

Okay, now in order to keep minors or mentally incompetent people from being able to buy guns, you have to have a way of figuring out who is who. People still check my ID when I buy beer and I'm 31 years old. Obviously, people cannot know age for certain when they look. They obviously have to ask for ID. They have to make sure it's a valid ID. Now, let's discuss mentally incompetent adults. How on earth would you possibly know who those people are unless there's a database system verifying it? Now, suppose the mentally incompetent adult argued that making this check violated their second amendment rights.

Also, I'd like to say that I think people with a history of violence also cannot practice mature judgment. Why should they be given a pass that kids aren't? We're talking about people here who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot be trusted with a gun. In theory, they're not supposed to be given a pass. Let's face it though, a law against criminals getting guns is useless without enforcement.

Also, nobody here has proven to me that taking these protective measures violates second amendment rights. If one is not a criminal, then they should have no problem passing these background checks and registering. Their right to a gun shouldn't be infringed by this.

We're also supposed to have a right to property in general and yet we can't just go into a store and buy land. There usually are processes in that as well. Nobody complains that their rights are being violated. Actually, there are situations where I think those rights have been violated, but yet there are no special interest groups about it. For example, in order to own a car in my state, one has to have insurance. To have insurance, one must have a license. Uh, excuse me? Don't I have a right to property?

NJCardFan
02-17-2011, 11:29 PM
So I guess in Lainie's mind we should register steak knives, hammers, rope, and the leading cause of death, water.

Gingersnap
02-17-2011, 11:31 PM
Okay, now in order to keep minors or mentally incompetent people from being able to buy guns, you have to have a way of figuring out who is who. People still check my ID when I buy beer and I'm 31 years old. Obviously, people cannot know age for certain when they look. They obviously have to ask for ID. They have to make sure it's a valid ID. Now, let's discuss mentally incompetent adults. How on earth would you possibly know who those people are unless there's a database system verifying it? Now, suppose the mentally incompetent adult argued that making this check violated their second amendment rights.

Also, I'd like to say that I think people with a history of violence also cannot practice mature judgment. Why should they be given a pass that kids aren't? We're talking about people here who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot be trusted with a gun. In theory, they're not supposed to be given a pass. Let's face it though, a law against criminals getting guns is useless without enforcement.

Also, nobody here has proven to me that taking these protective measures violates second amendment rights. If one is not a criminal, then they should have no problem passing these background checks and registering. Their right to a gun shouldn't be infringed by this.

We're also supposed to have a right to property in general and yet we can't just go into a store and buy land. There usually are processes in that as well. Nobody complains that their rights are being violated.

Yes, you can verify age if the person offering the I.D. used their real age when obtaining it. I don't know about you but I had a fake I.D. back in the day. It was easy to get.

There is no way to discern incompetent adults outside of some medical diagnoses. Are you incompetent when you are depressed, anxious, angry, bored? Maybe.

People who have a history of violence are also able to mature out of it just as addicts, sexually promiscuous people, and the financially retarded mature out of those issues. A beat-down at 25 doesn't necessarily mean a beat-down at 55.

We do have the right to go into a "store" and buy land? Uh, yeah - I've done it.

Sonnabend
02-18-2011, 01:53 AM
Thank you for answering that unlike the others. Suppose somebody suggested that we get rid of the law prohibiting minors from smoking, buying guns, etc due to this reason. Would you support it?Lanie it is already illegal here for minors to possess or to buy cigarettes, and it is illegal for shops to sell to them. I passed a bunch of kids under 18 smoking today. I see kids under the age of sixteen drinking every day.I see drunken twelve year olds at concerts, in the streets....laws haven't done a damned thing to stop them.

What will you do, pass MORE laws? It's already illegal. Hasn't stopped them. Won't stop them, ever.


Okay, now in order to keep minors or mentally incompetent people from being able to buy guns, you have to have a way of figuring out who is who. People still check my ID when I buy beer and I'm 31 years old. Obviously, people cannot know age for certain when they look. They obviously have to ask for ID. They have to make sure it's a valid ID. Now, let's discuss mentally incompetent adults. How on earth would you possibly know who those people are unless there's a database system verifying it? Now, suppose the mentally incompetent adult argued that making this check violated their second amendment rights.There are varying degrees of "mental incompetence", the term itself is vague to a fare thee well Twelve year olds look 18. Fifteen year olds look 20. They use fake id's, or get adults to buy for them, or swipe it from their parent's places....

Those laws don't work either.


Also, I'd like to say that I think people with a history of violence also cannot practice mature judgment. Why should they be given a pass that kids aren't? We're talking about people here who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot be trusted with a gun. In theory, they're not supposed to be given a pass. Let's face it though, a law against criminals getting guns is useless without enforcement.I will say it again, Lanie, and I am getting sick of your obtuseness, I live in a nation with massive gun restrictions, we have shootings and drive bys every single day. Name me ONE way in which gun laws have stopped criminals every getting their hands on guns.

JUST ONE.

I live in a nation with damned useless gun laws. So why aren't you listening to what I have to say?

Because unlike you, I know far better as to just how useless those laws are?

Or is it because I am telling a truth you won't care to admit.?

Hm?

You can't because I know far better than you do, and I have seen in reality just how ineffectual those laws are.


Also, nobody here has proven to me that taking these protective measures violates second amendment rights. If one is not a criminal, then they should have no problem passing these background checks and registering. Their right to a gun shouldn't be infringed by this.What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Heller Vs US already confirmed that private ownership of guns is an absolute right.

Your ideas of "gun control" have effectively disarmed poor bastards like me and left me prey to well armed criminals. Carjacking at gunpoint last night. Armed robberies. Drive by shootings.

Do you think these were committed by legal gun owners?

NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of all gun crimes in this nation are committed by illegal weapons. The law here also counts suicide by gun as a "crime". So they didnt kill themselves by gun, they hanged themselves, or took pills, or drove off a cliff.

Criminals do not buy their guns legally. They import them, they BUILD THEM...cops have found hundreds of domestically created firearms. Do you think it is rocket science to make a pistol or a rifle? It isn't.

In this city, where I live, despite all the gun laws and restrictions and laws, the local crim goes down the pub or to a mate and hands over his cash and gets a gun and ammo no questions asked.

There are THOUSANDS of illegal guns on the street. Thousands. The cops have already said there is bugger all they can do to stop it.

The only people gun laws have any effect on are the law abiding. No one else.

Lanie, in brief and to sum up.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.

Thatisall.

AmPat
02-18-2011, 10:01 AM
But aren't people like yourself wanting the other 20,000 laws removed? I think that point is moot.

Let's look at people's logic and apply it elsewhere.
No, "people like me" don't want people like you crapping on my Constitutional rights by passing more laws that won't prevent murder.

It is illegal for minors to own a gun.
Some kids still got their hands on guns and used them.
Therefore, it is pointless to make sure the kids are eighteen before selling them a gun because these kids don't respect the law to begin with.
No again. The laws are there. What more legislation would prevent this? Another law. Maybe a strongly worded law with lots and lots of "I really, REALLY mean it this time" language in it?:rolleyes:


It is illegal for kids to smoke cigarettes and to buy tobacco.
Several kids start using tobacco as minors.
These kids obviously don't care about the law.
Therefore, we should stop carding people in the stores because many of these kids will get their hands on tobacco anyway.
No again. You must love the wood to your butt. The law is meant to prevent the selling to minors. When the dealer is caught, he is fined and punished. Clear yet?


I'm not convinced that the gun laws are completely ineffective. You speak about crime. I'd like to see data on people who tried to buy guns, but couldn't and didn't bother to take it any further. There's no evidence that all non-reformed convicts are going after the guns.

Great gobs of liberal idiocy! All you have to do to find your "evidence" is look at arrest reports and recidivism records of prisons. What more "evidence" has to be spoon fed to you?:cool:

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 10:48 AM
Lanie it is already illegal here for minors to possess or to buy cigarettes, and it is illegal for shops to sell to them. I passed a bunch of kids under 18 smoking today. I see kids under the age of sixteen drinking every day.I see drunken twelve year olds at concerts, in the streets....laws haven't done a damned thing to stop them.

What will you do, pass MORE laws? It's already illegal. Hasn't stopped them. Won't stop them, ever.

There are varying degrees of "mental incompetence", the term itself is vague to a fare thee well Twelve year olds look 18. Fifteen year olds look 20. They use fake id's, or get adults to buy for them, or swipe it from their parent's places....

Those laws don't work either.

I will say it again, Lanie, and I am getting sick of your obtuseness, I live in a nation with massive gun restrictions, we have shootings and drive bys every single day. Name me ONE way in which gun laws have stopped criminals every getting their hands on guns.

JUST ONE.

I live in a nation with damned useless gun laws. So why aren't you listening to what I have to say?

Because unlike you, I know far better as to just how useless those laws are?

Or is it because I am telling a truth you won't care to admit.?

Hm?

You can't because I know far better than you do, and I have seen in reality just how ineffectual those laws are.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Heller Vs US already confirmed that private ownership of guns is an absolute right.

Your ideas of "gun control" have effectively disarmed poor bastards like me and left me prey to well armed criminals. Carjacking at gunpoint last night. Armed robberies. Drive by shootings.

Do you think these were committed by legal gun owners?

NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of all gun crimes in this nation are committed by illegal weapons. The law here also counts suicide by gun as a "crime". So they didnt kill themselves by gun, they hanged themselves, or took pills, or drove off a cliff.

Criminals do not buy their guns legally. They import them, they BUILD THEM...cops have found hundreds of domestically created firearms. Do you think it is rocket science to make a pistol or a rifle? It isn't.

In this city, where I live, despite all the gun laws and restrictions and laws, the local crim goes down the pub or to a mate and hands over his cash and gets a gun and ammo no questions asked.

There are THOUSANDS of illegal guns on the street. Thousands. The cops have already said there is bugger all they can do to stop it.

The only people gun laws have any effect on are the law abiding. No one else.

Lanie, in brief and to sum up.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.

Thatisall.
Once a country has installed these laws they are all but impossible to repeal.

jediab
02-18-2011, 11:10 AM
Gun laws and most laws in general are like locks on doors. They will only keep the good people out.

fettpett
02-18-2011, 02:25 PM
Once a country has installed these laws they are all but impossible to repeal.

QFT, unless they have sunsets built in, which sadly few do

Sonnabend
02-18-2011, 02:45 PM
Well, Lanie?

Molon Labe
02-18-2011, 03:04 PM
I say really strong because I think second amendment supporters come in different colors. Anyway, I have some questions about how to keep guns out of the hands of those with a criminal history.

Do you favor waiting time to completely check out a person's background?

Do you favor registration so people know who owns a gun?

Do you favor background checks in general?

What methods of protection do you think the law should take that hasn't been mentioned above?



Method of protection.


Carry a gun.

Madisonian
02-18-2011, 05:41 PM
I for one am perfectly comfortable with the idea of a twelve year old girl walking into her local hardware store, slapping some cash down on the counter, and then, no questions asked, wheeling a belt fed machine gun and a few cases of ammo home in her radio flyer.

The mere thought of it warms the cockles of my heart.


Among other things, federal law:

1. requires all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U. S. government's possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);

2. bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986;

3. requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms;

4. with very limited exceptions, imposes a $ 200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred;

5. bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and

6. imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $ 250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.


If a 12 year old can afford the 25-30,000 for the gun, the transfer fee and get BAFTE approval, I have no problem with it either.

Or were you being sarcastic?

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 06:50 PM
For you .223 reloader's Wideners just got in some 64 gr tracers for 120.00 per 1000
http://www.wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=100000169

fettpett
02-18-2011, 07:03 PM
If a 12 year old can afford the 25-30,000 for the gun, the transfer fee and get BAFTE approval, I have no problem with it either.

Or were you being sarcastic?

probably more of an "Ideal" than anything else :D

Lanie
02-18-2011, 07:40 PM
We do have the right to go into a "store" and buy land? Uh, yeah - I've done it.

Were you able to buy land without a process? It's not exactly a pepsi.

Lanie
02-18-2011, 07:43 PM
Lanie it is already illegal here for minors to possess or to buy cigarettes, and it is illegal for shops to sell to them. I passed a bunch of kids under 18 smoking today. I see kids under the age of sixteen drinking every day.I see drunken twelve year olds at concerts, in the streets....laws haven't done a damned thing to stop them.

What will you do, pass MORE laws? It's already illegal. Hasn't stopped them. Won't stop them, ever.

There are varying degrees of "mental incompetence", the term itself is vague to a fare thee well Twelve year olds look 18. Fifteen year olds look 20. They use fake id's, or get adults to buy for them, or swipe it from their parent's places....

Those laws don't work either.

I will say it again, Lanie, and I am getting sick of your obtuseness, I live in a nation with massive gun restrictions, we have shootings and drive bys every single day. Name me ONE way in which gun laws have stopped criminals every getting their hands on guns.

JUST ONE.

I live in a nation with damned useless gun laws. So why aren't you listening to what I have to say?

Because unlike you, I know far better as to just how useless those laws are?

Or is it because I am telling a truth you won't care to admit.?

Hm?

You can't because I know far better than you do, and I have seen in reality just how ineffectual those laws are.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Heller Vs US already confirmed that private ownership of guns is an absolute right.

Your ideas of "gun control" have effectively disarmed poor bastards like me and left me prey to well armed criminals. Carjacking at gunpoint last night. Armed robberies. Drive by shootings.

Do you think these were committed by legal gun owners?

NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of all gun crimes in this nation are committed by illegal weapons. The law here also counts suicide by gun as a "crime". So they didnt kill themselves by gun, they hanged themselves, or took pills, or drove off a cliff.

Criminals do not buy their guns legally. They import them, they BUILD THEM...cops have found hundreds of domestically created firearms. Do you think it is rocket science to make a pistol or a rifle? It isn't.

In this city, where I live, despite all the gun laws and restrictions and laws, the local crim goes down the pub or to a mate and hands over his cash and gets a gun and ammo no questions asked.

There are THOUSANDS of illegal guns on the street. Thousands. The cops have already said there is bugger all they can do to stop it.

The only people gun laws have any effect on are the law abiding. No one else.

Lanie, in brief and to sum up.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY.

Thatisall.

I agree. You cannot legislate morality. Since you can't legislate morality, it's important to keep criminals from legally obtaining guns.

And you haven't shown me one way that the laws actually keep law abiding citizens from buying guns.

Lanie
02-18-2011, 07:46 PM
The purpose behind my bringing up laws that prohibit minors from buying stuff and processes in regards to buying property (even laws in some cases) is to point out that we have laws on other issues and that guns should not be treated so special. Laws against buying cigarettes under eighteen years of ages does not keep adults from buying cigarettes (unless they forget their ID). Laws which prevent me from owning a car in my state without insurance does not prevent me from owning a car (and we have a constitutional right to privacy). Why should guns be treated like they're special and how are protective laws keeping legal citizens from buying?

Sonnabend
02-18-2011, 08:07 PM
Lanie I will say this again and I am losing my patience .

Get this and get it straight. You cannot in any way stop criminals from getting guns.

Gun laws DO NOT affect criminals in any way shape or form.

ENOUGH with this nanny state garbage. Wanna know how these asinine laws stop legal owners? They make it so fucking hard and so many fucking regulations that it DISCOURAGES people. Gun laws are there for the state to control it's people, not to protect them. An armed population is hard to control, disarmed citizens are sheep and helpless against a State that tells it's people they can't be trusted to protect themselves.

Go look up Australian gun laws and see for yourself.

Gun laws do not work

DO YOU GET IT NOW???????

Odysseus
02-18-2011, 08:22 PM
The purpose behind my bringing up laws that prohibit minors from buying stuff and processes in regards to buying property (even laws in some cases) is to point out that we have laws on other issues and that guns should not be treated so special. Laws against buying cigarettes under eighteen years of ages does not keep adults from buying cigarettes (unless they forget their ID). Laws which prevent me from owning a car in my state without insurance does not prevent me from owning a car (and we have a constitutional right to privacy). Why should guns be treated like they're special and how are protective laws keeping legal citizens from buying?

Would you be so kind as to state exactly where that right to privacy is stated?

And guns are unique. The possession of the means to protect yourself and your property is a basic safeguard of all other rights. If I deny you the right to drive, I subject you to inconvenience, but I do not endanger your life or property. If I deny you the means of self defense, I leave you at the mercy of every predator within range of your home.

"Protective" laws? Like what? Give an example of a law that you support that we oppose.

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 08:36 PM
Were you able to buy land without a process? It's not exactly a pepsi.

"Process"? You be surprised at how easy it is to buy things with cash. If you mean, did they ensure that I was a responsible landowner who understood real estate law, environmental regulations, and zoning ordinances and that I was mentally competent to spend thousands of dollars, the answer is "no". :p

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 08:54 PM
"Process"? You be surprised at how easy it is to buy things with cash. If you mean, did they ensure that I was a responsible landowner who understood real estate law, environmental regulations, and zoning ordinances and that I was mentally competent to spend thousands of dollars, the answer is "no". :p

It's hard to tell but i think she is referring to getting a loan to buy the land which could be considered a process. If you pay cash and don't feel a need to have the abstract researched by a lawyer there really is no process to speak of. I have no idea the relivance of her comparison though.:confused:

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 09:14 PM
It's hard to tell but i think she is referring to getting a loan to buy the land which could be considered a process. If you pay cash and don't feel a need to have the abstract researched by a lawyer there really is no process to speak of. I have no idea the relivance of her comparison though.:confused:

It isn't relevant. We have many, many areas of personal choice that are potentially lethal to ourselves or those around us that are not (and should not) be regulated by the State. Guns seem somehow more dangerous than other objects and gun owners seem more dangerous than equally lethal but unarmed people.

Restricting gun ownership and operation by minors has nothing to do with the same issues involving adults. Children are not allowed to decide how to arrange their own education, buying habits, or travel plans. Just because we restrict children from these decisions doesn't mean that restricting adults in the same way is good.

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 09:19 PM
It isn't relevant. We have many, many areas of personal choice that are potentially lethal to ourselves or those around us that are not (and should not) be regulated by the State. Guns seem somehow more dangerous than other objects and gun owners seem more dangerous than equally lethal but unarmed people.

Restricting gun ownership and operation by minors has nothing to do with the same issues involving adults. Children are not allowed to decide how to arrange their own education, buying habits, or travel plans. Just because we restrict children from these decisions doesn't mean that restricting adults in the same way is good.

People with liberal tendencies think with their emotions rather than use logic, you cannot argue on the same level with them.

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 10:20 PM
People with liberal tendencies think with their emotions rather than use logic, you cannot argue on the same level with them.

Sure I can - I've been arguing with Lanie for years. :D

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 10:31 PM
Sure I can - I've been arguing with Lanie for years. :D

Are you expecting some sort of break through?:D

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 10:37 PM
Are you expecting some sort of break through?:D

Actually, Lanie has modified both her positions and her posting style over the years. She has shown a lot of maturity, common sense, and thoughtfulness compared to years ago.

Kudos to her for making a lot of progress in critical thinking. While she and I disagree on this issue, she very much engaging in a debate. That's the actual purpose of CU. ;)

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 10:45 PM
Actually, Lanie has modified both her positions and her posting style over the years. She has shown a lot of maturity, common sense, and thoughtfulness compared to years ago.

Kudos to her for making a lot of progress in critical thinking. While she and I disagree on this issue, she very much engaging in a debate. That's the actual purpose of CU. ;)

So you think.

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 10:49 PM
So you think.

I know her, I know this site, and I know what has happened over time. I'd trust Lanie to make my bail. ;)

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 10:50 PM
I know her, I know this site, and I know what has happened over time. I'd trust Lanie to make my bail. ;)

If she would marry a conservative guy and have two kids she would change much faster!:rolleyes:

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 10:53 PM
If she would marry a conservative guy and have two kids she would change much faster!:rolleyes:

She doesn't need to change - this is a debate site, not a cult site. :p

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 10:56 PM
She doesn't need to change - this is a debate site, not a cult site. :p

It is Conservative Underground and at the rate you are convincing her she will be 80 and you will be 110 before she votes for her first conservative!:rolleyes:

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 11:19 PM
It is Conservative Underground and at the rate you are convincing her she will be 80 and you will be 110 before she votes for her first conservative!:rolleyes:

It's "Conservative Underground - A Place For Conservatives and Liberals to Debate". Google is your friend. ;)

Rockntractor
02-18-2011, 11:20 PM
It's "Conservative Underground - A Place For Conservatives and Liberals to Debate". Google is your friend. ;)

No it's not, Google is a tool of Satan!

Gingersnap
02-18-2011, 11:22 PM
No it's not, Google is a tool of Satan!

A friendly tool of Satan in this case. :p

RobJohnson
02-19-2011, 02:08 AM
"Process"? You be surprised at how easy it is to buy things with cash. If you mean, did they ensure that I was a responsible landowner who understood real estate law, environmental regulations, and zoning ordinances and that I was mentally competent to spend thousands of dollars, the answer is "no". :p

Yes, it's very easy.

In Illinois it was more of a pain, even with cash...the title companies made you hire lawyers...

But here in Nevada buying a house was just about as quick as buying a new SUV.

Bailey
02-19-2011, 04:19 AM
The purpose behind my bringing up laws that prohibit minors from buying stuff and processes in regards to buying property (even laws in some cases) is to point out that we have laws on other issues and that guns should not be treated so special. Laws against buying cigarettes under eighteen years of ages does not keep adults from buying cigarettes (unless they forget their ID). Laws which prevent me from owning a car in my state without insurance does not prevent me from owning a car (and we have a constitutional right to privacy). Why should guns be treated like they're special and how are protective laws keeping legal citizens from buying?

Owning a firearm is a right buying cigs isn't buying land isnt. Once you gun grabbers figure this point out we all be much better for it.

txradioguy
02-19-2011, 12:48 PM
I know her, I know this site, and I know what has happened over time. I'd trust Lanie to make my bail. ;)


I wouldn't. Lanie reminds me of my 15 y/o daughter. Just when you think you're getting through to her...she says or does something that makes you think what you said just went in one ear and out the other.


I don't think she's modified the way she posts as much as she's become smarter about the topics she engages us in.

She finds the ones with the most easily available Lib talking points via internet search.

Apache
02-19-2011, 02:38 PM
The purpose behind my bringing up laws that prohibit minors from buying stuff and processes in regards to buying property (even laws in some cases) is to point out that we have laws on other issues and that guns should not be treated so special. Laws against buying cigarettes under eighteen years of ages does not keep adults from buying cigarettes (unless they forget their ID). Laws which prevent me from owning a car in my state without insurance does not prevent me from owning a car (and we have a constitutional right to privacy). Why should guns be treated like they're special and how are protective laws keeping legal citizens from buying?

Most states have laws requiring 18 rifle/shotgun, 21 handgun age limits. So now how does than stop a gang member from getting or stealing a handgun?

I mean what do you want, licensing? I am vehemetly(sp?) opposed to that, because it will lead to confiscation...

On top of that, who will deem you to be qualified to get the license?There ain't much I trust my government, much less the current adminstration, to get right. I'll leave my safety in my hands...



thankyouverymuch:cool:

FeebMaster
02-19-2011, 02:45 PM
If a 12 year old can afford the 25-30,000 for the gun, the transfer fee and get BAFTE approval, I have no problem with it either.

Or were you being sarcastic?

I highly doubt that a society that let's 12 year buy firearms without paperwork or background checks is going to have a frozen supply of machine guns or excessive taxes on them.

Rockntractor
02-19-2011, 03:40 PM
I highly doubt that a society that let's 12 year buy firearms without paperwork or background checks is going to have a frozen supply of machine guns or excessive taxes on them.

How do you feel about responsible bazooka use?

Apache
02-19-2011, 03:59 PM
How do you feel about responsible bazooka use?

Don't aim it at the house...:cool:

FeebMaster
02-19-2011, 04:11 PM
How do you feel about responsible bazooka use?

I strongly encourage it.

http://oi53.tinypic.com/303fecp.jpg

Sonnabend
02-19-2011, 05:47 PM
Apache; it doesn't in any sense. But trying to tell this dickhead Lanie that is an exercise in stupidity. Little Miss Nanny State thinks that laws are the ultimate solution.

It isn't listening and it doesn't have a fucking clue.

Odysseus
02-19-2011, 07:15 PM
I strongly encourage it.

http://oi53.tinypic.com/303fecp.jpg

Oh, c'mon. You call that responsible use? That kid hasn't checked his backblast area.

Apache
02-19-2011, 07:29 PM
Apache; it doesn't in any sense. But trying to tell this dickhead Lanie that is an exercise in stupidity. Little Miss Nanny State thinks that laws are the ultimate solution.

It isn't listening and it doesn't have a fucking clue.

She won't say what she wants, that's what pisses me off...

Laws? what laws haven't been enacted?


Licensing, confiscation and banning.. You're the expert there, I mean you've been through it...



Lanie, WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Apache
02-19-2011, 07:30 PM
Oh, c'mon. You call that responsible use? That kid hasn't checked his backblast area.

Not to mention his posture :eek:

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:24 PM
Lanie I will say this again and I am losing my patience .

Get this and get it straight. You cannot in any way stop criminals from getting guns.

Gun laws DO NOT affect criminals in any way shape or form.

ENOUGH with this nanny state garbage. Wanna know how these asinine laws stop legal owners? They make it so fucking hard and so many fucking regulations that it DISCOURAGES people. Gun laws are there for the state to control it's people, not to protect them. An armed population is hard to control, disarmed citizens are sheep and helpless against a State that tells it's people they can't be trusted to protect themselves.

Go look up Australian gun laws and see for yourself.

Gun laws do not work

DO YOU GET IT NOW???????


I think you're getting too personal to be discussing this with. Later.

Rockntractor
02-19-2011, 09:28 PM
I think you're getting too personal to be discussing this with. Later.

Get personal back.:confused:

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:28 PM
Would you be so kind as to state exactly where that right to privacy is stated?

And guns are unique. The possession of the means to protect yourself and your property is a basic safeguard of all other rights. If I deny you the right to drive, I subject you to inconvenience, but I do not endanger your life or property. If I deny you the means of self defense, I leave you at the mercy of every predator within range of your home.

"Protective" laws? Like what? Give an example of a law that you support that we oppose.

The courts decided years ago that via the 14th amendment that we had a right to privacy (and it happened before Roe vs. Wade, so nobody go there please). If you disagree with that, then find some people to work on having this overturned.

When I discuss the right to have a car, I'm not talking about the right to drive (not a right). I'm talking about the right to own property. Constitutionally speaking, we should have a right to own a car with or without our license (driving is another matter). However, barriers have still been created regarding out constitutional rights to own property. Likewise, guns shouldn't be treated so special. That's my point there.

As for protective laws that I support that others here oppose, read the the thread. Registration and background checks to ensure that only legal citizens buy a gun is mostly what I support. That's it.

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:29 PM
It's hard to tell but i think she is referring to getting a loan to buy the land which could be considered a process. If you pay cash and don't feel a need to have the abstract researched by a lawyer there really is no process to speak of. I have no idea the relivance of her comparison though.:confused:

If you have to go through a process to buy land (a constitutional right), then why shouldn't you have to go through a process to buy a gun? Ginger didn't have to go through a process in this case, but some people do. That was my point.

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:31 PM
People with liberal tendencies think with their emotions rather than use logic, you cannot argue on the same level with them.

I've been using logic the entire time. I've been met with people saying it's all about emotion, saying they don't understand what I'm saying, and in some cases flat out ignoring my arguments. Oh, and I've been met with people who take the argument to a personal and insulting level (but I'm arguing with emotion? Uh, no).

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:31 PM
Actually, Lanie has modified both her positions and her posting style over the years. She has shown a lot of maturity, common sense, and thoughtfulness compared to years ago.

Kudos to her for making a lot of progress in critical thinking. While she and I disagree on this issue, she very much engaging in a debate. That's the actual purpose of CU. ;)

Thank you. :)

And I want to say that you've been a nice breath of fresh air on CU. :)

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:32 PM
If she would marry a conservative guy and have two kids she would change much faster!:rolleyes:

Are you proposing?

Sonnabend
02-19-2011, 09:32 PM
Typical liberal moron. When faced with facts they run away or chicken out with cookies like this.

I live in a nation with restrictive gun laws, and yet you refuse to listen when confronted with an expert who has proof that your "protective measures" are a complete failure.

So, Lanie, you and me. Debate the issue.

Licensing. Restrictions . Bans and laws up to the eyeballs.

We have them all , and I can prove that they don't work. So, that's the challenge.

Yes or no , Lanie??

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:34 PM
Owning a firearm is a right buying cigs isn't buying land isnt. Once you gun grabbers figure this point out we all be much better for it.

Owning property is a constitutional right.

And Rock, I voted conservative this past election (for the most part). I thought the government was spending too much and basically making the economy go boom at a faster rate.

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:35 PM
I wouldn't. Lanie reminds me of my 15 y/o daughter. Just when you think you're getting through to her...she says or does something that makes you think what you said just went in one ear and out the other.


I don't think she's modified the way she posts as much as she's become smarter about the topics she engages us in.

She finds the ones with the most easily available Lib talking points via internet search.


What's wrong with me staying a liberal after all of these years? To be very brutally honest, I think that's what it comes down to with you. Have you ever considered the idea that if I stayed a liberal after all of these years that there might be a reason? That maybe there is a valid point of view besides your own?

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:38 PM
Most states have laws requiring 18 rifle/shotgun, 21 handgun age limits. So now how does than stop a gang member from getting or stealing a handgun?

I mean what do you want, licensing? I am vehemetly(sp?) opposed to that, because it will lead to confiscation...


On top of that, who will deem you to be qualified to get the license?There ain't much I trust my government, much less the current adminstration, to get right. I'll leave my safety in my hands...



thankyouverymuch:cool:

Okay, the boldened makes the most sense. I think the second amendment would protect us from getting our guns confiscated, but I see your point.

I would think it's all simply about being registered. They do a background check, find you're okay, and then you get a gun. That's it.

Now, I have to be honest here. I found out that sometimes people are being denied for what I would considered to be stupid reasons. Like maybe years ago, somebody stole a pig or stole something else. Should people who stole be prohibited from buying a gun? They're not necessarily a violent criminal.

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:39 PM
Get personal back.:confused:

I might at some point, but in all honesty that usually backfires with me.

Sonnabend
02-19-2011, 09:43 PM
We have registration. Wait times of over sixty days to even be issued a firearms license. Another thirty days to get a "permit to acquire" . Then the gun has to be registered. Locked up. Ammo stored the same way. Trigger locks.

Background checks state, Federal and even Interpol. I went through it to be "allowed" to own a firearm.

None of which stops a criminal, as evidenced by the fact the police have stated that they cannot stop the flow of illegal guns into Australia.

Your "measures" are a failure.

Care to comment?

Lanie
02-19-2011, 09:48 PM
We have registration. Wait times of over sixty days to even be issued a firearms license. Another thirty days to get a "permit to acquire" . Then the gun has to be registered. Locked up. Ammo stored the same way. Trigger locks.

None of which stops a criminal, as evidenced by the fact the police have stated that they cannot stop the flow of illegal guns into Australia.

Your "measures" are a failure.

Care to comment?

Some of these laws do go too far. People shouldn't have to wait sixty to ninety days. I know it can be done in a much shorter amount of time. And I wouldn't favor telling people how to keep their guns at home (except for keeping them away from children). Are you from Australia? Just because Australia goes overboard doesn't mean we're going overboard.

Sonnabend
02-19-2011, 09:52 PM
No, Lanie, I am from Antarctica. :rolleyes:

Will you stop dodging the point? Your measures are a failure and no gun law anywhere will ever stop a criminal from being armed.

YES OR NO???

Apache
02-19-2011, 09:59 PM
Okay, the boldened makes the most sense. I think the second amendment would protect us from getting our guns confiscated, but I see your point.

I would think it's all simply about being registered. They do a background check, find you're okay, and then you get a gun. That's it.

Now, I have to be honest here. I found out that sometimes people are being denied for what I would considered to be stupid reasons. Like maybe years ago, somebody stole a pig or stole something else. Should people who stole be prohibited from buying a gun? They're not necessarily a violent criminal.

To do, that is what the post was missing...:o

Brain, fingers, keyboard...somethings will get lost, ya knowwhat ImeanVern? :p
They do a background check, find you're okay, and then you get a gun. That's it.
That's already done...Brady bill...

Sonnabend
02-19-2011, 10:09 PM
Lanie: answer this statement, yes or no?

Gun laws do not stop criminals from being armed.

It's a simple question. Answer it.

Apache
02-19-2011, 10:11 PM
Some of these laws do go too far. People shouldn't have to wait sixty to ninety days. I know it can be done in a much shorter amount of time. And I wouldn't favor telling people how to keep their guns at home (except for keeping them away from children). Are you from Australia? Just because Australia goes overboard doesn't mean we're going overboard.

That's bullshit Lanie, absolute bullshit. You look at New York City, Washington DC, Chicago and you'll see what you just posted is wrong. You look at California, the gun laws they have there, and then the crime-rate, wrong. That is gun grabbing Australian style...

You know I see you, your posts, and I have hope for you. I think you're incredibly niave on this topic. Sonna may be ham-fisted on things but that's because he's living through them. He's our canary...
Truth be told, Sonna would put many posters, on this board, to shame with his knowlege of America....

Apache
02-19-2011, 10:13 PM
I might at some point, but in all honesty that usually backfires with me.

So wipe off the soot and move on...:p

Sonnabend
02-19-2011, 10:20 PM
Lanie, answer the question.

Sonnabend
02-20-2011, 03:17 AM
Quit hiding and answer.

obx
02-20-2011, 09:01 AM
Quit hiding and answer.

Bump for Sonna.

Odysseus
02-20-2011, 11:08 AM
The courts decided years ago that via the 14th amendment that we had a right to privacy (and it happened before Roe vs. Wade, so nobody go there please). If you disagree with that, then find some people to work on having this overturned.

When I discuss the right to have a car, I'm not talking about the right to drive (not a right). I'm talking about the right to own property. Constitutionally speaking, we should have a right to own a car with or without our license (driving is another matter). However, barriers have still been created regarding out constitutional rights to own property. Likewise, guns shouldn't be treated so special. That's my point there.

As for protective laws that I support that others here oppose, read the the thread. Registration and background checks to ensure that only legal citizens buy a gun is mostly what I support. That's it.

Here's the text of the 14th Amendment. Show me the right to privacy.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Registration has preceded confiscation too many times for government to be trusted with that information. The most egregious example was the NYC ban. New York imposed registration on all rifles in 1967, but the city council stated that the registration lists would not be used for a general confiscation. The New York Times editorial sounds remarkably like you. from September 26, 1967:


"No sportsman should object to a city law that makes it mandatory to obtain a license from the Police Department and to register rifles. . . . Carefully drawn local legislation would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would be not to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

In 1991, Mayor Dinkins got the city council to ban semiautomatic rifles, falsely defining them as assault weapons. Those residents who had registered in 1967 and obeyed the law found themselves stripped of their rights. Naturally, the NYPD used the registration lists to harass gun owners, even going door-to-door to take guns. So, no registration is not on the table. As the protesters said when the ban went into effect, "We complied, you lied."

Sonnabend
02-20-2011, 02:58 PM
Lanie: answer the question.

Sonnabend
02-20-2011, 08:16 PM
Lanie you are online

Quit running and answer me.

patriot45
02-20-2011, 08:22 PM
Lanie you are online

Quit running and answer me.

Or what!?! Haha!

Sonnabend
02-20-2011, 08:26 PM
Nothing really, other than the fact I will rub her nose in it until she does.

Sonnabend
02-28-2011, 03:25 PM
Bump for Lanie, who started this thread

obx
02-28-2011, 06:18 PM
bump for sonna

Bailey
03-01-2011, 07:22 AM
Bump for sona :D

Apache
03-01-2011, 09:19 AM
No more bumping! They don't run that kind of site here :eek:

Bailey
03-01-2011, 09:24 AM
No more bumping! They don't run that kind of site here :eek:

as long as there isn't any grinding. :eek::D

Sonnabend
03-01-2011, 05:31 PM
Waiting, Lanie......