# Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?



## 2aguy

Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?

Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........


----------



## regent

Anyone ever figure out why some love guns so much?


----------



## GaryDog

I think you should be required to get a license to own any gun, by federal mandate.  Something akin to a pilot's license.  There is no civilian use for assault weapons.  Properly stored, registered, and safety-retrofitted handguns and hunting rifles are fine.  Why not retrofit all guns to require the fingerprint of the gun owner to fire them?  Makes perfect sense, and still allows you to fire your gun to  your penis's, I mean heart's, content.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........



Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair 

1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".  
2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one. 
3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own. 
4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.  

By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.


----------



## Skull Pilot

GaryDog said:


> I think you should be required to get a license to own any gun, by federal mandate.  Something akin to a pilot's license.  There is no civilian use for assault weapons.  Properly stored, registered, and safety-retrofitted handguns and hunting rifles are fine.  Why not retrofit all guns to require the fingerprint of the gun owner to fire them?  Makes perfect sense, and still allows you to fire your gun to  your penis's, I mean heart's, content.


Define assault weapon


----------



## alang1216

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair
> 
> 1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
> 2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
> 3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
> 4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.
> 
> By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
Click to expand...

I agree but would add a mandatory training class and "driving" test to ensure you know how and when to use the gun.


----------



## oldsoul

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair
> 
> 1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
> 2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
> 3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
> 4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.
> 
> By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
Click to expand...

A little phrase comes to mind... "shall not be infringed." So, I guess what you are suggesting is a constitutional amendment fundamentally changing, or completely removing, the 2nd. Am I on the right road here?

Seeing as you did not provide a link to your source information on Germany, I took it upon myself to do a quick Google search (about 1 minute), and found an interesting, albeit possibly casual, correlation:
While the US's rate (5 per 100,000) is somewhere north of 5x that of Germany (.86 per 100,000) for murders, we only executed 69 more people than Germany (2,014 v. 1,945). Also, the police officers per capita is higher in Germany (303.8 per 100k) than in the US (243.6 per 100k). I wonder if the correlation is more than casual...
Germany vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats


----------



## Coyote

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture. 
_Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

 “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
 You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:






In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.


----------



## Coyote

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair
> 
> 1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
> 2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
> 3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
> 4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.
> 
> By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
Click to expand...



You'd have to have a constitutional change for that...


----------



## Al Azar

1) Background check for every acquisition.

2) Registration of every firearm.

3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.

Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.


I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.


Gee, where have we seen this before????

Oh, yeah, Nazi Germany. What a wonderful bunch of fellows they where...


----------



## GaryDog

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
Click to expand...


All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.


----------



## GaryDog

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, where have we seen this before????
> 
> Oh, yeah, Nazi Germany. What a wonderful bunch of fellows they where...
Click to expand...


Also, all of current western Europe.

But you know, inevitable naziism.


----------



## Al Azar

GaryDog said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Click to expand...

Yet you mock responsible gun control.


----------



## GaryDog

Al Azar said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
Click to expand...


Define it then.


----------



## Al Azar

GaryDog said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
Click to expand...

???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.


----------



## oldsoul

GaryDog said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Click to expand...

Really? how many criminals have been stopped by your beloved gun laws? Huh? How many? I got news for ya, criminals, by definition, don't give a #$*! about your gun laws.


----------



## GaryDog

oldsoul said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? how many criminals have been stopped by your beloved gun laws? Huh? How many? I got news for ya, criminals, by definition, don't give a #$*! about your gun laws.
Click to expand...


You want me to give you a tally of the people who DIDN'T shoot someone?   Really?


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
Click to expand...

Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.


----------



## oldsoul

GaryDog said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? how many criminals have been stopped by your beloved gun laws? Huh? How many? I got news for ya, criminals, by definition, don't give a #$*! about your gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want me to give you a tally of the people who DIDN'T shoot someone?   Really?
Click to expand...

No, what I want is for you to stop and THINK. If only criminals have guns, how safe will YOU feel going outside?


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
Click to expand...

Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?

Or ever?

Save your bumper sticker responses.


----------



## GaryDog

oldsoul said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? how many criminals have been stopped by your beloved gun laws? Huh? How many? I got news for ya, criminals, by definition, don't give a #$*! about your gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want me to give you a tally of the people who DIDN'T shoot someone?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I want is for you to stop and THINK. If only criminals have guns, how safe will YOU feel going outside?
Click to expand...


If our society was less gun-crazy, we'd all be safer.  Period.  Under no scenario of gun control that any liberal I know has proposed would "only criminals have guns."

STFU with that stupid false narrative.


----------



## GaryDog

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
Click to expand...


Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.


----------



## Al Azar

GaryDog said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
Click to expand...


I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.

In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.

Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> 
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
Click to expand...




Al Azar said:


> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.



Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
Click to expand...


I don't call cops OR carry guns.  Believe it or not, some of us go through life making the kinds of choices that don't put us in need of insane amounts of firepower.  You should try it.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
Click to expand...


Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.

Thanks, NRA.


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't call cops OR carry guns.  Believe it or not, some of us go through life making the kinds of choices that don't put us in need of insane amounts of firepower.  You should try it.
Click to expand...


 I live in a house, not a closet.

and there are people in my past that prevent me feeling completely secure.

(Working as a prison guard has a tendency to make you defensive)


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
Click to expand...



NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't call cops OR carry guns.  Believe it or not, some of us go through life making the kinds of choices that don't put us in need of insane amounts of firepower.  You should try it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a house, not a closet.
> 
> and there are people in my past that prevent me feeling completely secure.
> 
> (Working as a prison guard has a tendency to make you defensive)
Click to expand...

Law enforcement is a high risk occupation.  No reason to extrapolate fears of your own creation onto the population at large.  Nothing suggested here would prevent you from acquiring any weapon you need to make yourself feel safer while milling about in our midst.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
Click to expand...

I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
Click to expand...


   How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery? 
    That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
Click to expand...



If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.

Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?

What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
Click to expand...

Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
*
We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
Click to expand...

You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.

What a racket.


----------



## Hugo Furst

They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.

Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> 
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
Click to expand...


   Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
    The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
    Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> *Save your bumper sticker responses*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, that's all they have.  Platitutdes.  Rhyming devices.  Meanwhile, the research and the facts are on the side of those who promote responsible, common-sense gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may have responded inappropriately to a post of yours earlier.  I'm unfamiliar with this forum's format.  Sorry.
> 
> In any case, the for-profit gun lobby has successfully initiated an arms race in this country.  It's created a problem and then stepped up to "solve" it by exacerbating the problem.  We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Score one for entrepreneurship the price of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're left in the position of either getting on board or being left *relatively *defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
Click to expand...


There's only so many hours in a day, but I'm sure they'll get there.  Lord knows they're trying.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
Click to expand...


  No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
    The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.


----------



## Al Azar

They don't need to approve of misuse.  They need only make it as hard as possible to legislate against misuse.  And they have the financial resources to do a very good job of that.


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
Click to expand...


That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").

But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.

INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.

But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

 Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc



They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
Click to expand...


  I really dont care about suicide.
If someone wants to kill themselves there are plenty of tall buildings to jump off of or garages to park in with the engine running.


----------



## GaryDog

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
Click to expand...


I swear, these pansy-ass Gun Zealots have gone from "Don't take my guns!!!!" to "Don't mildly inconvenience me in my quest or anyone else's quest to own all guns ever made!"


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really dont care about suicide.
> If someone wants to kill themselves there are plenty of tall buildings to jump off of or garages to park in with the engine running.
Click to expand...


That's like saying "I really don't care about cancer."

Suicide is the end result of depression, which is a disease.  Guns make suicide much, much easier, and much, much more tempting.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
Click to expand...


  Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.


----------



## Al Azar

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
Click to expand...

No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.

Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns. 

It's simple risk/reward calculus.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
Click to expand...


    Registration leads to confiscation....no thanks.
 Lock up those who commit crimes with firearms for looooong sentences and the problem will go away.


----------



## hjmick

Oh these fuckers are funny, scary as hell, but funny...


What other rights are you people ready to deny citizens?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really dont care about suicide.
> If someone wants to kill themselves there are plenty of tall buildings to jump off of or garages to park in with the engine running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying "I really don't care about cancer."
> 
> Suicide is the end result of depression, which is a disease.  Guns make suicide much, much easier, and much, much more tempting.
Click to expand...


  Thats the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
People generally want to be cured of cancer...unless of course they're suicidal.
    Can you explain how Japans suicide rate is way higher than that of the US yet they have very strict gun laws?


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really dont care about suicide.
> If someone wants to kill themselves there are plenty of tall buildings to jump off of or garages to park in with the engine running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying "I really don't care about cancer."
> 
> Suicide is the end result of depression, which is a disease.  Guns make suicide much, much easier, and much, much more tempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
> People generally want to be cured of cancer...unless of course they're suicidal.
> Can you explain how Japans suicide rate is way higher than that of the US yet they have very strict gun laws?
Click to expand...


And people generally don't want ot die from cancer, and don't have a choice.

Similarly, people with severe depression may not have a choice about wanting to die.  Talk to a mental health professional, you act like I'm making this up.

True, Japan would have WAY more people dying of gunshot wounds if they had more guns.  As it stands, they instead have more people surviving suicide attempts and getting help.

You say that's a bad thing?  Weird, I think human suffering is not great.  Agree to disagree I guess.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
Click to expand...

 Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
Click to expand...



So do I.

I plan on giving my granddaughter, (19 ), a handgun in a week or so, with her fathers permission.

Under the ridiculous rule you want, I'd have to wait til she turns 21, so she can pass a background check

I have a number of other firearms  I plan on giving to family members, or selling to friends at the gun range.

again, though I have known these people for years, your ridiculous rule would require to go to a local dealer, and pay to have a background check done.

So, I am INDEED against it


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
Click to expand...



arms registration?

EVERY law abiding citizen should fear that


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> I plan on giving my granddaughter, (19 ), a handgun in a week or so, with her fathers permission.
> 
> Under the ridiculous rule you want, I'd have to wait til she turns 21, so she can pass a background check
> 
> I have a number of other firearms  I plan on giving to family members, or selling to friends at the gun range.
> 
> again, though I have known these people for years, your ridiculous rule would require to go to a local dealer, and pay to have a background check done.
> 
> So, I am INDEED against it
Click to expand...


I plan to help my son buy a car.  Under these ridiculous DMV rules, I have to wait until he's licensed, get the car registered, make sure it's insured, etc. 

ABSURD!  I should be able to give him whatever i want, RIGHT NOW!! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> arms registration?
> 
> EVERY insanely paranoid law abiding citizen with a basement full of news articles taped to the walls should fear that
Click to expand...


FIFY


----------



## GaryDog

hjmick said:


> Oh these fuckers are funny, scary as hell, but funny...
> 
> 
> What other rights are you people ready to deny citizens?



Your right to breed for starters.


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
Click to expand...


Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> I plan on giving my granddaughter, (19 ), a handgun in a week or so, with her fathers permission.
> 
> Under the ridiculous rule you want, I'd have to wait til she turns 21, so she can pass a background check
> 
> I have a number of other firearms  I plan on giving to family members, or selling to friends at the gun range.
> 
> again, though I have known these people for years, your ridiculous rule would require to go to a local dealer, and pay to have a background check done.
> 
> So, I am INDEED against it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I plan to help my son buy a car.  Under these ridiculous DMV rules, I have to wait until he's licensed, get the car registered, make sure it's insured, etc.
> 
> ABSURD!  I should be able to give him whatever i want, RIGHT NOW!! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!
Click to expand...


Go ahead, give it to him.

You don't need a license, insurance, or registration to drive it on your own property.

and driving, last time I looked at the Constitution, driving is not a right


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
Click to expand...


   The main reason I dont own a fully automatic rifle is the cost.
You're looking at 15k for a halfway decent one not to mention the cost of ammo and licensing.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
Click to expand...


Police impound lots


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> I plan on giving my granddaughter, (19 ), a handgun in a week or so, with her fathers permission.
> 
> Under the ridiculous rule you want, I'd have to wait til she turns 21, so she can pass a background check
> 
> I have a number of other firearms  I plan on giving to family members, or selling to friends at the gun range.
> 
> again, though I have known these people for years, your ridiculous rule would require to go to a local dealer, and pay to have a background check done.
> 
> So, I am INDEED against it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I plan to help my son buy a car.  Under these ridiculous DMV rules, I have to wait until he's licensed, get the car registered, make sure it's insured, etc.
> 
> ABSURD!  I should be able to give him whatever i want, RIGHT NOW!! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead, give it to him.
> 
> You don't need a license, insurance, or registration to drive it on your own property.
> 
> and driving, last time I looked at the Constitution, driving is not a right
Click to expand...


Maybe it should be.  Almost everyone in the country needs to drive in order to make a living.  Almost no one in the country needs a privately-owned gun to make a living.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> I plan on giving my granddaughter, (19 ), a handgun in a week or so, with her fathers permission.
> 
> Under the ridiculous rule you want, I'd have to wait til she turns 21, so she can pass a background check
> 
> I have a number of other firearms  I plan on giving to family members, or selling to friends at the gun range.
> 
> again, though I have known these people for years, your ridiculous rule would require to go to a local dealer, and pay to have a background check done.
> 
> So, I am INDEED against it
Click to expand...

 You can be against anything you like.  You don't need reason nor any logical or factual basis for what you like or dislike.

I'm not discussing personal likes and dislikes.  I'm answering the OP's question with well-reasoned opinion.


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
Click to expand...


I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?

You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
Click to expand...


  Another ignorant analogy. Driving is not a constitutional right.


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
Click to expand...


Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
Click to expand...


What was their criminal background.

Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
Click to expand...



Not by you.

You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.

you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not by you.
> 
> You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.
> 
> you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to
Click to expand...


I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.

I can't find one.  Because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
Click to expand...




HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another ignorant analogy. Driving is not a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
Click to expand...



They are law abiding til they aren't.

Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.

odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10

but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
Click to expand...


  You'll never stop all mass killings no matter what you do.
A  large truck did a fine job not to long ago.
   And the Orlando shooter was investigated by the feds for terrorist ties yet they did nothing. The San Bernardino couple were muslim terrorist and the wife was let into the country with no vetting.
    How about we start complaining about our lax approach to the laws on the books?


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not by you.
> 
> You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.
> 
> you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.
> 
> I can't find one.  Because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...



You might want to expand you search into other countries


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> I plan on giving my granddaughter, (19 ), a handgun in a week or so, with her fathers permission.
> 
> Under the ridiculous rule you want, I'd have to wait til she turns 21, so she can pass a background check
> 
> I have a number of other firearms  I plan on giving to family members, or selling to friends at the gun range.
> 
> again, though I have known these people for years, your ridiculous rule would require to go to a local dealer, and pay to have a background check done.
> 
> So, I am INDEED against it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I plan to help my son buy a car.  Under these ridiculous DMV rules, I have to wait until he's licensed, get the car registered, make sure it's insured, etc.
> 
> ABSURD!  I should be able to give him whatever i want, RIGHT NOW!! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead, give it to him.
> 
> You don't need a license, insurance, or registration to drive it on your own property.
> 
> and driving, last time I looked at the Constitution, driving is not a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it should be.  Almost everyone in the country needs to drive in order to make a living.  Almost no one in the country needs a privately-owned gun to make a living.
Click to expand...


   You do know the reason for the 2nd amendment right?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> Law-abiding citizens don't fear background checks, arms registration and severe penalties for misuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
Click to expand...


   Thats a pathetic analogy..


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
Click to expand...

I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.




Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.

We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....

Normal gun owners are not the problem....

Think about that.

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........

The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not by you.
> 
> You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.
> 
> you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.
> 
> I can't find one.  Because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


  It's happened in many countries around the world.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
Click to expand...


ready access?

they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never stop all mass killings no matter what you do.
> *A  large truck did a fine job not to long ago.*
> And the Orlando shooter was investigated by the feds for terrorist ties yet they did nothing. The San Bernardino couple were muslim terrorist and the wife was let into the country with no vetting.
> How about we start complaining about our lax approach to the laws on the books?
Click to expand...


Because running people over in a street is the same thing as ....running people over in a classroom?  Come on, be honest about the issue AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT.

Trucks are designed to transport people and items.  Guns are designed to kill. Get a grip.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
Click to expand...


  They wouldnt have ready access if they were in prison.
As i already said,the majority who commit firearm crimes are repeat offenders.


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.




I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?

Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....

So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....

And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.
> 
> We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem....
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........
> 
> The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.
Click to expand...

Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never stop all mass killings no matter what you do.
> *A  large truck did a fine job not to long ago.*
> And the Orlando shooter was investigated by the feds for terrorist ties yet they did nothing. The San Bernardino couple were muslim terrorist and the wife was let into the country with no vetting.
> How about we start complaining about our lax approach to the laws on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because running people over in a street is the same thing as ....running people over in a classroom?  Come on, be honest about the issue AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT.
> 
> Trucks are designed to transport people and items.  Guns are designed to kill. Get a grip.
Click to expand...


  So you're in favor of banning trucks on our public streets?


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not by you.
> 
> You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.
> 
> you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.
> 
> I can't find one.  Because it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's happened in many countries around the world.
Click to expand...


As a consequence of registration in the absence of any stated law requiring confiscation?   

In modern times, in a first-world country?

Please cite.


----------



## GaryDog

HereWeGoAgain said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never stop all mass killings no matter what you do.
> *A  large truck did a fine job not to long ago.*
> And the Orlando shooter was investigated by the feds for terrorist ties yet they did nothing. The San Bernardino couple were muslim terrorist and the wife was let into the country with no vetting.
> How about we start complaining about our lax approach to the laws on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because running people over in a street is the same thing as ....running people over in a classroom?  Come on, be honest about the issue AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT.
> 
> Trucks are designed to transport people and items.  Guns are designed to kill. Get a grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're in favor of banning trucks on our public streets?
Click to expand...


No.  There is a societal purpose to having trucks on streets.


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
Click to expand...



They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?
Click to expand...


You're not very bright are you?

Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago

Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lanza killed his mother to get one of her guns, the san bernadino couple got theirs from a straw buyer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
Click to expand...



And that is an anti gun myth.....

Chicago has 3 million people.

New York has 8 million people.

Both cities have the exact same strict gun control laws.

Chicago has higher gun murder number than New York......and New York is next to Vermont....and Vermont has less restrictive gun laws than Indiana...

So your point makes no sense...but you repeated it nicely from whatever anti gunner you got it from.....


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never stop all mass killings no matter what you do.
> *A  large truck did a fine job not to long ago.*
> And the Orlando shooter was investigated by the feds for terrorist ties yet they did nothing. The San Bernardino couple were muslim terrorist and the wife was let into the country with no vetting.
> How about we start complaining about our lax approach to the laws on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because running people over in a street is the same thing as ....running people over in a classroom?  Come on, be honest about the issue AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT.
> 
> Trucks are designed to transport people and items.  Guns are designed to kill. Get a grip.
Click to expand...


I've owned guns for over 50 years, my 2 brothers about the same.

My son in laws 25 or more each.

and yet not one of us have ever killed a human being.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?
> 
> Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....
> 
> So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....
> 
> And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?
Click to expand...

Any one of these steps is inadequate.  All three get the job done.

Again, reference the effectiveness of our existing machine gun laws.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.




Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?


----------



## GaryDog

2aguy said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was their criminal background.
> 
> Everyone is "law abiding" as you paint them....until they're not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is an anti gun myth.....
> 
> Chicago has 3 million people.
> 
> New York has 8 million people.
> 
> Both cities have the exact same strict gun control laws.
> 
> Chicago has higher gun murder number than New York......and New York is next to Vermont....and Vermont has less restrictive gun laws than Indiana...
> 
> So your point makes no sense...but you repeated it nicely from whatever anti gunner you got it from.....
Click to expand...



Holy shit, did you fail geography????
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Vermont is a solid 300 miles away from NYC!


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?
> 
> Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....
> 
> So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....
> 
> And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any one of these steps is inadequate.  All three get the job done.
> 
> Again, reference the effectiveness of our existing machine gun laws.
Click to expand...



Criminals don't need machine guns so they don't get machine guns.........they can kill with pistols...which is hat they use..........

Your point is wrong.


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> 
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not very bright are you?
> 
> Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago
> 
> Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.
Click to expand...



Now you're bringing up gun shows, and sales by private owners, not gun store owners.

are you into BDSM?

You certainly enjoy getting spanked


----------



## GaryDog

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
Click to expand...


Are you unaware of how the constitution and judicial review works?


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> 
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is an anti gun myth.....
> 
> Chicago has 3 million people.
> 
> New York has 8 million people.
> 
> Both cities have the exact same strict gun control laws.
> 
> Chicago has higher gun murder number than New York......and New York is next to Vermont....and Vermont has less restrictive gun laws than Indiana...
> 
> So your point makes no sense...but you repeated it nicely from whatever anti gunner you got it from.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit, did you fail geography????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vermont is a solid 300 miles away from NYC!
Click to expand...



So you are saying that gangs in New York get car sick?   Or they don't have GPS?

Really?


----------



## GaryDog

WillHaftawaite said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not very bright are you?
> 
> Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago
> 
> Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're bringing up gun shows, and sales by private owners, not gun store owners.
> 
> are you into BDSM?
> 
> You certainly enjoy getting spanked
Click to expand...


Yes, you're "spanking" me with your zero sources, spurious arguments, and poor grammar and spelling.  

You may as well be my uncle forwarding a Heritage Foundation email.  It's sad, really.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.
> 
> We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem....
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........
> 
> The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.
Click to expand...


I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> 
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not very bright are you?
> 
> Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago
> 
> Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.
Click to expand...



Wrong......the anti gun journalist has no idea...the actual thing fueling gun violence in Chicago....prosecutors and judges who let criminals and felons caught with guns off with light sentences.......a felon caught with an illegal gun....repeatedly..will do less than 2 years.........th police know who these guys are...and they keep arresting them...and they keep getting released...that is what is causing gun mirder.


----------



## hjmick

GaryDog said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh these fuckers are funny, scary as hell, but funny...
> 
> 
> What other rights are you people ready to deny citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right to breed for starters.
Click to expand...



That's the best you have? Pretty damn weak, but then that's to be expected considering the source...


You people really just don't get it, not even a little bit. That's why it is absolutely pointless to attempt to have a rational discussion on this topic with any of you.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair
> 
> 1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
> 2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
> 3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
> 4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.
> 
> By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree but would add a mandatory training class and "driving" test to ensure you know how and when to use the gun.
Click to expand...



And a mandatory class on u.s. Government before you vote?  How about a literacy test before you vote?


----------



## Hugo Furst

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not very bright are you?
> 
> Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago
> 
> Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're bringing up gun shows, and sales by private owners, not gun store owners.
> 
> are you into BDSM?
> 
> You certainly enjoy getting spanked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you're "spanking" me with your zero sources, spurious arguments, and poor grammar and spelling.
> 
> You may as well be my uncle forwarding a Heritage Foundation email.  It's sad, really.
Click to expand...



I'm spanking you with common sense arguments, and facts.

things you lack


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> Anyone ever figure out why some love guns so much?




Th y are the tools of freedom.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
Click to expand...



Gangs don't need machine guns...so they don't use them....in Europe..where fully automatic weapons are illegal...they like them...and get them easily...


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
Click to expand...

 So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?

Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
Click to expand...



....all you have to do to be eligible to vote is be 18....that's it.  Do you want that for guns...turn 18 and you can buy guns?


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?
> 
> Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....
> 
> So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....
> 
> And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any one of these steps is inadequate.  All three get the job done.
> 
> Again, reference the effectiveness of our existing machine gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't need machine guns so they don't get machine guns.........they can kill with pistols...which is hat they use..........
> 
> Your point is wrong.
Click to expand...

You miss the point.  They use pistols because pistols aren't regulated like machine guns.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
Click to expand...



I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....

What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...

So what do they do?


----------



## Hugo Furst

They use pistols, because even on the black market the price of machine guns is restrictive.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ....all you have to do to be eligible to vote is be 18....that's it.  Do you want that for guns...turn 18 and you can buy guns?
Click to expand...

 You have to prove a lot more than age to vote.  Ever been to Texas?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?
> 
> Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....
> 
> So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....
> 
> And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any one of these steps is inadequate.  All three get the job done.
> 
> Again, reference the effectiveness of our existing machine gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't need machine guns so they don't get machine guns.........they can kill with pistols...which is hat they use..........
> 
> Your point is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You miss the point.  They use pistols because pistols aren't regulated like machine guns.
Click to expand...



No....that isn't why at all......gangs in the United States use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry........and they don't waste ammo

French criminals like fully automatic rifles...they are a status symbol with them...and those fully automatic rifles are completely illegal in France...and their criminals get them easily......so you are not correct on this...


----------



## 2aguy

WillHaftawaite said:


> They use pistols, because even on the black market the price of machine guns is restrictive.




No......pistols are easy to conceal in a car....and a waistband, or a baby mommas purse, or in a house that might be searched by police....if they wanted machine guns...they would get them.....they are available in this country...


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are law abiding til they aren't.
> 
> Next time you walk down the street, try to figure out which people are honest, and which are criminals.
> 
> odds are, you'd be wrong 9 times out of 10
> 
> but what do you do about that 10th person, until they do something?
> 
> 
> 
> I care less about who criminals are than I do about what criminals with ready access to guns do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ready access?
> 
> they go to gun stores, and buy one over the counter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In Indiana, they're hot items for transport into Chicago due to the lax gun laws in Indiana.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't follow Federal Law concerning background checks at gun stores in Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not very bright are you?
> 
> Lax gun laws in Indiana fuel gun violence in Chicago
> 
> Indiana’s gun laws are relatively simple. Federally licensed “brick and mortar” gun dealers are required to perform standard background checks, while vendors selling their “private collections” at gun shows are not. An Indiana resident could walk out of the Crown Point gun show with a legally purchased assault rifle that same day — without a background check — less than an hour from Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. Handguns are subject to different regulations in Indiana.
Click to expand...



The suburbs of Chicago are less than an hour.....and you can do the same thing.......your point is not valid.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not by you.
> 
> You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.
> 
> you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.
> 
> I can't find one.  Because it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's happened in many countries around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a consequence of registration in the absence of any stated law requiring confiscation?
> 
> In modern times, in a first-world country?
> 
> Please cite.
Click to expand...

 
Australia


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
Click to expand...

*Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how the constitution and judicial review works?
Click to expand...



I am well aware of both.......do you want a tax on voting and a test before you can vote......?

Look up the 14th Amendment and get back to us.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never stop all mass killings no matter what you do.
> *A  large truck did a fine job not to long ago.*
> And the Orlando shooter was investigated by the feds for terrorist ties yet they did nothing. The San Bernardino couple were muslim terrorist and the wife was let into the country with no vetting.
> How about we start complaining about our lax approach to the laws on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because running people over in a street is the same thing as ....running people over in a classroom?  Come on, be honest about the issue AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT.
> 
> Trucks are designed to transport people and items.  Guns are designed to kill. Get a grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're in favor of banning trucks on our public streets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  There is a societal purpose to having trucks on streets.
Click to expand...


  Just as there is a Constitutional reason to own firearms.


----------



## 2aguy

HereWeGoAgain said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not by you.
> 
> You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.
> 
> you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.
> 
> I can't find one.  Because it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's happened in many countries around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a consequence of registration in the absence of any stated law requiring confiscation?
> 
> In modern times, in a first-world country?
> 
> Please cite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Australia
Click to expand...



Britain.

Germany in the 1920s was a first world country...that is when they registered their guns...citing every single argument you guys are making here.....

10 years later...the socialists used those lists to take guns away from their political opposition and Jews...how did that turn out?


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.
> 
> We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem....
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........
> 
> The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
Click to expand...

On the contrary, you've ignored it.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
Click to expand...



Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?

I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....

I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....

But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never stop all mass killings no matter what you do.
> *A  large truck did a fine job not to long ago.*
> And the Orlando shooter was investigated by the feds for terrorist ties yet they did nothing. The San Bernardino couple were muslim terrorist and the wife was let into the country with no vetting.
> How about we start complaining about our lax approach to the laws on the books?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because running people over in a street is the same thing as ....running people over in a classroom?  Come on, be honest about the issue AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT.
> 
> Trucks are designed to transport people and items.  Guns are designed to kill. Get a grip.
Click to expand...



No...guns are designed to keep the owner alive.....and in most self defense situations they never have to be fired .......you are wrong.


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Registration leads to confiscation.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where are all those cars and trucks confiscated over the past 100 years we've been registering those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police impound lots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so a bunch of law-abiding folks registered their cars and had them seized?
> 
> You're getting hilariously stomped in this thread.  At every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not by you.
> 
> You seem to be a straight man in a comedy duo.
> 
> you MIGHT want to reread the post I responded to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find a parallel analogy to your absurd situation where law-abiding gun owners have their guns seized.
> 
> I can't find one.  Because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...



Britain and Australia, Germany in the 1930s.......


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.
> 
> We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem....
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........
> 
> The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
Click to expand...



I suggest you take another look at post #56


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
Click to expand...

Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some evidence that the average American gun owner uses their firearms to commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza had no criminal record.  Neither did the San Bernardino couple.  Neither did the Orlando shooter.
Click to expand...



90% of gun murderers have long histories of crime and violence......

357,000,000 guns in private hands...how many mass public shootings last year....4......


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> I plan on giving my granddaughter, (19 ), a handgun in a week or so, with her fathers permission.
> 
> Under the ridiculous rule you want, I'd have to wait til she turns 21, so she can pass a background check
> 
> I have a number of other firearms  I plan on giving to family members, or selling to friends at the gun range.
> 
> again, though I have known these people for years, your ridiculous rule would require to go to a local dealer, and pay to have a background check done.
> 
> So, I am INDEED against it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I plan to help my son buy a car.  Under these ridiculous DMV rules, I have to wait until he's licensed, get the car registered, make sure it's insured, etc.
> 
> ABSURD!  I should be able to give him whatever i want, RIGHT NOW!! WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead, give it to him.
> 
> You don't need a license, insurance, or registration to drive it on your own property.
> 
> and driving, last time I looked at the Constitution, driving is not a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it should be.  Almost everyone in the country needs to drive in order to make a living.  Almost no one in the country needs a privately-owned gun to make a living.
Click to expand...



Until they are attacked by criminals.....1,500,000 times a year Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shootings......

if it saves one life...right?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> 
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
Click to expand...



If I have a gun that is not registered...having broken no law and committed no crime.......you want me punished.  For something that is a Right under our Bill of Rights.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Background check for every acquisition.
> 
> 2) Registration of every firearm.
> 
> 3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.
> 
> Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns.  We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious.......I support current background checks because they make people like you happy....but.....how does any of it stop crime or mass shootings?
> 
> Haynes v. UNited States ruled that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....
> 
> So only normal people will have to register their guns...people who are not using guns for any crime....
> 
> And if a law abiding citizen..who has committed no other crime...or any crime with a gun...you want to punish them over a clerical error...that's what you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any one of these steps is inadequate.  All three get the job done.
> 
> Again, reference the effectiveness of our existing machine gun laws.
Click to expand...


People dont own machine guns because of the cost.


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really dont care about suicide.
> If someone wants to kill themselves there are plenty of tall buildings to jump off of or garages to park in with the engine running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying "I really don't care about cancer."
> 
> Suicide is the end result of depression, which is a disease.  Guns make suicide much, much easier, and much, much more tempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
> People generally want to be cured of cancer...unless of course they're suicidal.
> Can you explain how Japans suicide rate is way higher than that of the US yet they have very strict gun laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And people generally don't want ot die from cancer, and don't have a choice.
> 
> Similarly, people with severe depression may not have a choice about wanting to die.  Talk to a mental health professional, you act like I'm making this up.
> 
> True, Japan would have WAY more people dying of gunshot wounds if they had more guns.  As it stands, they instead have more people surviving suicide attempts and getting help.
> 
> You say that's a bad thing?  Weird, I think human suffering is not great.  Agree to disagree I guess.
Click to expand...



wrong......the suicide rate of Japan, South Korea, and China...countries that only allow criminals and cops to have guns are higher than our suicide rate......also France and many countries in gun controlled Europe.......


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
Click to expand...



wrong....accidental gun deaths in 2015...586...in a country with over 357,000,000 guns in private hands...

Car accidental deaths...33,000.....2 million non fatal injuries.....


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.
> 
> We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem....
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........
> 
> The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
Click to expand...

Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
Click to expand...



Here...non Asian suicide rates by country.......countries with extreme gun control laws v. the United States...

World suicide rates by country

World suicide rates by country

Per 100,000


Hungary ...        21.0
Belgium ....        18.4
Finland...          16.5
France...            14.6
Poland...          13.8
Austria...          13.8
Czech Republic... 12.7
New Zealand....    11.9
Denmark...        11.3
Sweden..............11.1
Norway...............10.9
Iceland................10.4
Germany.............10.3
Canada...............10.2

*United States.......10.1*


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a gun that is not registered...having broken no law and committed no crime.......you want me punished.  For something that is a Right under our Bill of Rights.....
Click to expand...

You broke the law by not registering it.  It's no different than breaking the law by driving without a license.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
Click to expand...


  So you borrow a buddies gun to go to the range because you're thinking about buying one and you go to jail.

    Nah..i dont think so.


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
Click to expand...



Here.......gun suicide v. non gun suicide in the U.S.......

*Gun suicide in 2014..... 21,334 (WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports)*

*non gun suicide in 2014...21,359 (WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports)*

-----------


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here...non Asian suicide rates by country.......countries with extreme gun control laws v. the United States...
> 
> World suicide rates by country
> 
> World suicide rates by country
> 
> Per 100,000
> 
> 
> Hungary ...        21.0
> Belgium ....        18.4
> Finland...          16.5
> France...            14.6
> Poland...          13.8
> Austria...          13.8
> Czech Republic... 12.7
> New Zealand....    11.9
> Denmark...        11.3
> Sweden..............11.1
> Norway...............10.9
> Iceland................10.4
> Germany.............10.3
> Canada...............10.2
> 
> *United States.......10.1*
Click to expand...

Deflecting the thread onto an altogether different topic suggests you've run out of excuses.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.
> 
> We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem....
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........
> 
> The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
Click to expand...



Why not?

It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you borrow a buddies gun to go to the range because you're thinking about buying one and you go to jail.
> 
> Nah..i dont think so.
Click to expand...

See how far you'd get borrowing your buddy's passport and using it.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a gun that is not registered...having broken no law and committed no crime.......you want me punished.  For something that is a Right under our Bill of Rights.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You broke the law by not registering it.  It's no different than breaking the law by driving without a license.
Click to expand...



and the only reason it was a law is because you created it......otherwise there is no reason to register the gun as a law abiding gun owner....you specifically created a law, that does not apply to criminals and only puts the law abiding person at legal risk because they did not jump through your bureaucratic hoop....

And who will pay to register guns?   Any payment is unconstitional under the 14th Amendment.....equal protection....poor people can't afford it...therfore it is not Constitutional.  Just like Poll Taxes on the Right to vote.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> 
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you borrow a buddies gun to go to the range because you're thinking about buying one and you go to jail.
> 
> Nah..i dont think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how far you'd get borrowing your buddy's passport and using it.
Click to expand...


  Why would someone borrow a passport that would be useless?


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They block efforts that would affect law abiding citizens as well as criminals.
> 
> Find me a link that shows them approving of straw purchases, felons or criminals owning firearms, back street sales, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They oppose background checks for ALL gun purchases.  Most NRA members support it.  If that's not proof to you, what is?
Click to expand...



Most NRA members are uninformed as to why you guys want universal background checks.....you only want it to get gun registration....


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.

The _horror..._


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
Click to expand...



No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
Click to expand...



Great deflection.

What does that have to do with the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
Click to expand...


  How many times does it have to be said?
Driving is not a Constitutional right.


----------



## 2aguy

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
Click to expand...



That is how you actually stop gun crime....but that isn't the goal of most of the posters here...they want to keep law abiding people from getting guns.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you borrow a buddies gun to go to the range because you're thinking about buying one and you go to jail.
> 
> Nah..i dont think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how far you'd get borrowing your buddy's passport and using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone borrow a passport that would be useless?
Click to expand...

Why would your buddy furnish you with a weapon you could use only illegally?

Hey, this is fun.  Let's speculate about all sorts of irrelevancies instead of discussing the issue.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
Click to expand...



WRong.....which anti gun group are your reciting from.....do some research please.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you borrow a buddies gun to go to the range because you're thinking about buying one and you go to jail.
> 
> Nah..i dont think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how far you'd get borrowing your buddy's passport and using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone borrow a passport that would be useless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would your buddy furnish you with a weapon you could use only illegally?
> 
> Hey, this is fun.  Let's speculate about all sorts of irrelevancies instead of discussing the issue.
Click to expand...


   I've borrowed firearms from friends many times.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we jail those actually committing crimes with firearms for around 25 years if used in a robbery, fifty years if you discharge the weapon during said robbery and get your affairs in order if you kill someone in a robbery?
> That way we actually punish the ones committing the crimes and not the law abiding.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly nothing wrong with that approach.  But we're not doing that *either.
> *
> We're not doing anything to address this problem because of the influence of those who won't abide *any *new efforts to control the acquisition and use of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else would be needed if we locked up criminals who use firearms for long sentences.
> The statistics show it's a small percentage of the population that commit crimes over and over again.
> Stop letting em out of prison and we'd see a dramatic drop in firearm related crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only leaves about 18,000 suicides, 1,000 accidental gun deaths, etc.  Still more than all of Europe combined.  (You know, since we're back to "black lives don't matter" or "only thugs kill with guns").
> 
> But sure, it's just the bad guys.  You gotta be delusional.  We're a gun-crazy country that the rest of the world shakes its head at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here...non Asian suicide rates by country.......countries with extreme gun control laws v. the United States...
> 
> World suicide rates by country
> 
> World suicide rates by country
> 
> Per 100,000
> 
> 
> Hungary ...        21.0
> Belgium ....        18.4
> Finland...          16.5
> France...            14.6
> Poland...          13.8
> Austria...          13.8
> Czech Republic... 12.7
> New Zealand....    11.9
> Denmark...        11.3
> Sweden..............11.1
> Norway...............10.9
> Iceland................10.4
> Germany.............10.3
> Canada...............10.2
> 
> *United States.......10.1*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflecting the thread onto an altogether different topic suggests you've run out of excuses.
Click to expand...



I was responding to a dumb point about suicide and guns.......notice...almost all of those countries have extreme gun control..and higher suicide rates than we do....


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our gun culture isn't a problem...we have 357,000,000 guns in private hands.......and in 2015 we had 586 accidental gun deaths.
> 
> We had 8,124 gun murders. Out of 357,000,000 privately held guns........do you realize how small a number that is in a country with 320,000,000 people?  And 90% of those doing the shooting cannot legally buy, own or carry the guns....
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem....
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...many times stopping mass shooters...........
> 
> The actual problem that we have is inner city criminals who have been raised for generations by single teenage mothers...creating young males with impulse control problems.......that is the problem....not gun owners or American gun culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Normal gun owners are not the problem and are unaffected by background checks and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out the silliness of that argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
Click to expand...



Not inconvenienced.........Poll Taxes and Literacy tests are infringements on the right to vote.......but really...aren't they just inconveniences.......why not put a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Why not require a test to vote..right?  Merely inconveneinces.......


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> 
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
Click to expand...



When you put a penalty on not registering a gun......which criminals do not have to do from the decision in Haynes v. United States.......


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a gun that is not registered...having broken no law and committed no crime.......you want me punished.  For something that is a Right under our Bill of Rights.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You broke the law by not registering it.  It's no different than breaking the law by driving without a license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the only reason it was a law is because you created it......otherwise there is no reason to register the gun as a law abiding gun owner....you specifically created a law, that does not apply to criminals and only puts the law abiding person at legal risk because they did not jump through your bureaucratic hoop....
> 
> And who will pay to register guns?   Any payment is unconstitional under the 14th Amendment.....equal protection....poor people can't afford it...therfore it is not Constitutional.  Just like Poll Taxes on the Right to vote.
Click to expand...

I didn't create the law requiring licensing of drivers.  We as a body created the law as a matter of public safety.  

And there's no reason not to extend that into other areas of public safety.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
Click to expand...

And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.

See the problem?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.
> 
> See the problem?
Click to expand...


  Stop being so soft on crime.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great deflection.
> 
> What does that have to do with the right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

Different topic.  We're discussing regulating those arms.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, you've ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.
> 
> See the problem?
Click to expand...



No.....you arrest criminals when you catch them.....

Do you feel the same about computers...they are used for child porn, sex trafficking, identity theft, stealing national secrets, planning mass shootings, encouraging mass shootings, moving money for terrorists....

Do you see why we should limit access to computers to just cops and the military?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> 
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
Click to expand...



it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if background checks and registration were free, you'd have no objection to them?
> 
> Voting is mentioned in our constitution six times.  Arms are mentioned but once.  Yet we must prove that we are eligible to vote.  Why the discrepancy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you put a penalty on not registering a gun......which criminals do not have to do from the decision in Haynes v. United States.......
Click to expand...

Make up your mind.  Are we talking about law-abiding citizens or people who break the law by possessing unregistered firearms?  Pick on and we'll discuss that.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a gun that is not registered...having broken no law and committed no crime.......you want me punished.  For something that is a Right under our Bill of Rights.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You broke the law by not registering it.  It's no different than breaking the law by driving without a license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the only reason it was a law is because you created it......otherwise there is no reason to register the gun as a law abiding gun owner....you specifically created a law, that does not apply to criminals and only puts the law abiding person at legal risk because they did not jump through your bureaucratic hoop....
> 
> And who will pay to register guns?   Any payment is unconstitional under the 14th Amendment.....equal protection....poor people can't afford it...therfore it is not Constitutional.  Just like Poll Taxes on the Right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't create the law requiring licensing of drivers.  We as a body created the law as a matter of public safety.
> 
> And there's no reason not to extend that into other areas of public safety.
Click to expand...



Except guns are a protected right.........there is no reason to not require a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Or a Test to vote..right?

Oh....except for that pesky 14th Amendment...that whole equal protection.....the poor will be negatively impacted by registration fees........on a Right...so a non starter.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you take another look at post #56
> 
> 
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
Click to expand...


  Shall not be infringed.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being so soft on crime.
Click to expand...

Now it's devolved into ad hominem snipes?

You lose.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with background checks at gun stores......they should be free however.....background checks for private sales are another issue...they require gun registration .......and gun registration is always used to ban and confiscate guns...they did that in Germany, Britain and Australia........so gun registration..which does not even apply to actual criminals is a non starter....
> 
> What exactly do you think gun registration achieves anyway......mass shooters would register their guns, happily....since they plan their shootings 6 months to 2 years in advance....and criminals don't have to register their illegal guns...
> 
> So what do they do?
> 
> 
> 
> *Again, *any one of these steps alone is inadequate.  Did you miss the third step, severe penalties for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why.......say I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record...why should I get penalized for owning a gun?
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up anyone using a gun in a crime....30 years.....
> 
> I am more than happy to lock up felons caught in mere possession of a gun...30 years....
> 
> But a law abiding person, with no criminal record, who is not using a gun to commit a crime...why do you want to punish them ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you put a penalty on not registering a gun......which criminals do not have to do from the decision in Haynes v. United States.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind.  Are we talking about law-abiding citizens or people who break the law by possessing unregistered firearms?  Pick on and we'll discuss that.
Click to expand...



Law abiding citizens....registration is unConstitutonal......and creating a brand new bureaucratic hoop....that does nothing to stop crime...since criminals do not have to register their guns via Haynes v. United States....requiring law abiding people to do so is against the 14th Amendment.......as well as the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....you arrest criminals when you catch them.....
> 
> Do you feel the same about computers...they are used for child porn, sex trafficking, identity theft, stealing national secrets, planning mass shootings, encouraging mass shootings, moving money for terrorists....
> 
> Do you see why we should limit access to computers to just cops and the military?
Click to expand...

Produce some homicide rates for computer misuse and I'll evaluate them.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who brought up penalizing law-abiding citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a gun that is not registered...having broken no law and committed no crime.......you want me punished.  For something that is a Right under our Bill of Rights.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You broke the law by not registering it.  It's no different than breaking the law by driving without a license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the only reason it was a law is because you created it......otherwise there is no reason to register the gun as a law abiding gun owner....you specifically created a law, that does not apply to criminals and only puts the law abiding person at legal risk because they did not jump through your bureaucratic hoop....
> 
> And who will pay to register guns?   Any payment is unconstitional under the 14th Amendment.....equal protection....poor people can't afford it...therfore it is not Constitutional.  Just like Poll Taxes on the Right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't create the law requiring licensing of drivers.  We as a body created the law as a matter of public safety.
> 
> And there's no reason not to extend that into other areas of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except guns are a protected right.........there is no reason to not require a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Or a Test to vote..right?
> 
> Oh....except for that pesky 14th Amendment...that whole equal protection.....the poor will be negatively impacted by registration fees........on a Right...so a non starter.
Click to expand...

Fine.  I'll submit an amendment to the Free College for Everyone bill to include free firearms registration.

Now you're on board?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....you arrest criminals when you catch them.....
> 
> Do you feel the same about computers...they are used for child porn, sex trafficking, identity theft, stealing national secrets, planning mass shootings, encouraging mass shootings, moving money for terrorists....
> 
> Do you see why we should limit access to computers to just cops and the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Produce some homicide rates for computer misuse and I'll evaluate them.
Click to expand...



3,000 people on 9/11.....140 in paris.......84...in Nice...all accomplished with the support of computers...........and that is just the start.......computers are used to recruit for al queada and isis......

no need for civilians to have access to uncontrolled computers.


----------



## G.T.

2aguy talks about anti gun crap more than anti gunners talk about anti gun crap


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I have a gun that is not registered...having broken no law and committed no crime.......you want me punished.  For something that is a Right under our Bill of Rights.....
> 
> 
> 
> You broke the law by not registering it.  It's no different than breaking the law by driving without a license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and the only reason it was a law is because you created it......otherwise there is no reason to register the gun as a law abiding gun owner....you specifically created a law, that does not apply to criminals and only puts the law abiding person at legal risk because they did not jump through your bureaucratic hoop....
> 
> And who will pay to register guns?   Any payment is unconstitional under the 14th Amendment.....equal protection....poor people can't afford it...therfore it is not Constitutional.  Just like Poll Taxes on the Right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't create the law requiring licensing of drivers.  We as a body created the law as a matter of public safety.
> 
> And there's no reason not to extend that into other areas of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except guns are a protected right.........there is no reason to not require a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Or a Test to vote..right?
> 
> Oh....except for that pesky 14th Amendment...that whole equal protection.....the poor will be negatively impacted by registration fees........on a Right...so a non starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  I'll submit an amendment to the Free College for Everyone bill to include free firearms registration.
> 
> Now you're on board?
Click to expand...



you know.......that was proposed for a gun law in one of the states.......the Republicans wanted to exempt people under a certain income level from paying the fees for background checks, and other fees....the democrats voted it down..........one of the only exemptions for the poor they actively fought.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
Click to expand...

We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?

Where do you come up with these groundless fears?


----------



## 2aguy

G.T. said:


> 2aguy talks about anti gun crap more than anti gunners talk about anti gun crap




Thanks.....I try.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have more people in jail than any country on earth, including India or China.
> 
> INDIA.  OR.  CHINA.
> 
> But please, preach more about how we need to jail more people in order to have the appropriate "hardness" against criminality.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being so soft on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it's devolved into ad hominem snipes?
> 
> You lose.
Click to expand...


    Ad hominem? When thugs are getting out of jail in 3 or 4 years for armed robbery there is a problem.
   You commit armed robbery you should spend 25 years with no parole.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example of how you would feel inconvenienced is not persuasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.


----------



## G.T.

I think mental health checks could be a slippery slope, who knows but crazies are gunna cray in some way regardless. Lets just raise our kids right.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You broke the law by not registering it.  It's no different than breaking the law by driving without a license.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the only reason it was a law is because you created it......otherwise there is no reason to register the gun as a law abiding gun owner....you specifically created a law, that does not apply to criminals and only puts the law abiding person at legal risk because they did not jump through your bureaucratic hoop....
> 
> And who will pay to register guns?   Any payment is unconstitional under the 14th Amendment.....equal protection....poor people can't afford it...therfore it is not Constitutional.  Just like Poll Taxes on the Right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't create the law requiring licensing of drivers.  We as a body created the law as a matter of public safety.
> 
> And there's no reason not to extend that into other areas of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except guns are a protected right.........there is no reason to not require a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Or a Test to vote..right?
> 
> Oh....except for that pesky 14th Amendment...that whole equal protection.....the poor will be negatively impacted by registration fees........on a Right...so a non starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  I'll submit an amendment to the Free College for Everyone bill to include free firearms registration.
> 
> Now you're on board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you know.......that was proposed for a gun law in one of the states.......the Republicans wanted to exempt people under a certain income level from paying the fees for background checks, and other fees....the democrats voted it down..........one of the only exemptions for the poor they actively fought.
Click to expand...

I await your documentation of that anecdotal report.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
Click to expand...



Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....

Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
Click to expand...


   Watch and learn.....


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the only reason it was a law is because you created it......otherwise there is no reason to register the gun as a law abiding gun owner....you specifically created a law, that does not apply to criminals and only puts the law abiding person at legal risk because they did not jump through your bureaucratic hoop....
> 
> And who will pay to register guns?   Any payment is unconstitional under the 14th Amendment.....equal protection....poor people can't afford it...therfore it is not Constitutional.  Just like Poll Taxes on the Right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't create the law requiring licensing of drivers.  We as a body created the law as a matter of public safety.
> 
> And there's no reason not to extend that into other areas of public safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except guns are a protected right.........there is no reason to not require a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Or a Test to vote..right?
> 
> Oh....except for that pesky 14th Amendment...that whole equal protection.....the poor will be negatively impacted by registration fees........on a Right...so a non starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  I'll submit an amendment to the Free College for Everyone bill to include free firearms registration.
> 
> Now you're on board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you know.......that was proposed for a gun law in one of the states.......the Republicans wanted to exempt people under a certain income level from paying the fees for background checks, and other fees....the democrats voted it down..........one of the only exemptions for the poor they actively fought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I await your documentation of that anecdotal report.
Click to expand...



3,000 people murdered on 9/11...computers were used to move money, communicate between the terrorists, and to buy the tickets for the killers.........


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to jail more people.  Increase the jail time for those who aren't getting the message.
> 
> Ref earlier mention of machine guns, the penalties for misuse, and the dearth of crimes with machine guns.
> 
> It's simple risk/reward calculus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.....gang members can't buy guns in the first place...any guns...they still get them...they use pistols because they are easy to conceal and carry and hide in their homes.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we now have so many in circulation, they're easy to steal.
> 
> See the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being so soft on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it's devolved into ad hominem snipes?
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad hominem? When thugs are getting out of jail in 3 or 4 years for armed robbery there is a problem.
> You commit armed robbery you should spend 25 years with no parole.
Click to expand...

Agreed.  In another thread I should tell you about my Major Crime/Minor Crime Theory of Criminal Justice.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
Click to expand...



The Bill of Rights is about protections against the government....as Charles Cooke wrote in National Review..to think the Bill of Rights that defends individual liberties would give a right to the Government to control guns through a militia is a joke.....


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
Click to expand...

Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?

If so, stop it.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't create the law requiring licensing of drivers.  We as a body created the law as a matter of public safety.
> 
> And there's no reason not to extend that into other areas of public safety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except guns are a protected right.........there is no reason to not require a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Or a Test to vote..right?
> 
> Oh....except for that pesky 14th Amendment...that whole equal protection.....the poor will be negatively impacted by registration fees........on a Right...so a non starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine.  I'll submit an amendment to the Free College for Everyone bill to include free firearms registration.
> 
> Now you're on board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you know.......that was proposed for a gun law in one of the states.......the Republicans wanted to exempt people under a certain income level from paying the fees for background checks, and other fees....the democrats voted it down..........one of the only exemptions for the poor they actively fought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I await your documentation of that anecdotal report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,000 people murdered on 9/11...computers were used to move money, communicate between the terrorists, and to buy the tickets for the killers.........
Click to expand...

I didn't see a single computer in the footage of the events that transpired.


----------



## 2aguy

And here is Charles W. Cooke on the absurdity of the "only militia get guns" argument....

Of Course Hillary Wants to 'Abolish' the Second Amendment, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about protections against the government....as Charles Cooke wrote in National Review..to think the Bill of Rights that defends individual liberties would give a right to the Government to control guns through a militia is a joke.....
Click to expand...

It's not gun control through the militia.  It's national defense and providing the justification for the arming members of the militia.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
Click to expand...


  Your trust in government is touching...
But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
Click to expand...



Germany registered guns in the 1920s using the same arguments that are now being used here in the United States.......and 10 years later the national socialists used those gun registration lists to disarm their political enemies and the Jews....and then marched 12 million Europeans into gas chambers....since the rest of Europe also disarmed their people...

In the 1990s.......during the Balkan war......unarmed civilians were mass murdered because they did not have guns to stop it.....I posted that thread this week too.....

mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide only happen to unarmed peoples.....


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about protections against the government....as Charles Cooke wrote in National Review..to think the Bill of Rights that defends individual liberties would give a right to the Government to control guns through a militia is a joke.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not gun control through the militia.  It's national defense and providing the justification for the arming members of the militia.
Click to expand...



Wrong....

*As was observed in Heller’s majority opinion, the revisionists’ interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it protects the right of the people to join a state organization over which the federal government enjoys plenary power. In and of itself, this position is logically absurd and historically illiterate. *

But it is also ridiculous on a practical basis. As is clear to anybody who has read the writings of both the colonists and the Founders, who has studied the jurists of the revolutionary era and beyond, who is familiar with the Dred Scott decision and the subsequent fallout, who has looked across the state constitutions, and who has followed the trajectory of the academic debate over the past 60-or-so years, Americans have enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms for all of their history.

 Should Hillary get her way, that right would disappear (at least legally), and the government would be freed up to make any policy choice it wished — up to and including a total ban. Who can say with a straight face that this wouldn’t be “to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment”? Who can claim without laughing that a reversal of Heller wouldn’t render the right a dead letter?

Read more at: Of Course Hillary Wants to 'Abolish' the Second Amendment, by Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about protections against the government....as Charles Cooke wrote in National Review..to think the Bill of Rights that defends individual liberties would give a right to the Government to control guns through a militia is a joke.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not gun control through the militia.  It's national defense and providing the justification for the arming members of the militia.
Click to expand...


  Missed post 182 did ya?


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
Click to expand...

It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.

But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except guns are a protected right.........there is no reason to not require a Poll Tax to vote...right?  Or a Test to vote..right?
> 
> Oh....except for that pesky 14th Amendment...that whole equal protection.....the poor will be negatively impacted by registration fees........on a Right...so a non starter.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  I'll submit an amendment to the Free College for Everyone bill to include free firearms registration.
> 
> Now you're on board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you know.......that was proposed for a gun law in one of the states.......the Republicans wanted to exempt people under a certain income level from paying the fees for background checks, and other fees....the democrats voted it down..........one of the only exemptions for the poor they actively fought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I await your documentation of that anecdotal report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,000 people murdered on 9/11...computers were used to move money, communicate between the terrorists, and to buy the tickets for the killers.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see a single computer in the footage of the events that transpired.
Click to expand...



Computers enabled the killings.......not one gun was used to kill those people....computers were used to move the money, the terrorists, and to make the deaths happen.....dittos the attack in Nice......84 people murdered, hundreds wounded.....and though the man had a gun...the people were murdered with the truck...but he used a computer.......


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...



The 2nd Amendment is gun control......allowing individuals to control guns...not the government.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  I'll submit an amendment to the Free College for Everyone bill to include free firearms registration.
> 
> Now you're on board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you know.......that was proposed for a gun law in one of the states.......the Republicans wanted to exempt people under a certain income level from paying the fees for background checks, and other fees....the democrats voted it down..........one of the only exemptions for the poor they actively fought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I await your documentation of that anecdotal report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,000 people murdered on 9/11...computers were used to move money, communicate between the terrorists, and to buy the tickets for the killers.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see a single computer in the footage of the events that transpired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Computers enabled the killings.......not one gun was used to kill those people....computers were used to move the money, the terrorists, and to make the deaths happen.....dittos the attack in Nice......84 people murdered, hundreds wounded.....and though the man had a gun...the people were murdered with the truck...but he used a computer.......
Click to expand...

And so did airplanes, and I saw several of those.  Those are both registered and highly regulated.  But that only reduces the misuse substantially.  Nothing can prevent all occurrences of misuse of any material object or technology.  We can only minimize it through responsible regulation.

Which is what we're supposedly discussing.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It would affect every gun owner at some point in their lives, and their families after their deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
Click to expand...



Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know.......that was proposed for a gun law in one of the states.......the Republicans wanted to exempt people under a certain income level from paying the fees for background checks, and other fees....the democrats voted it down..........one of the only exemptions for the poor they actively fought.
> 
> 
> 
> I await your documentation of that anecdotal report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3,000 people murdered on 9/11...computers were used to move money, communicate between the terrorists, and to buy the tickets for the killers.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see a single computer in the footage of the events that transpired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Computers enabled the killings.......not one gun was used to kill those people....computers were used to move the money, the terrorists, and to make the deaths happen.....dittos the attack in Nice......84 people murdered, hundreds wounded.....and though the man had a gun...the people were murdered with the truck...but he used a computer.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so did airplanes, and I saw several of those.  Those are both registered and highly regulated.  But that only reduces the misuse substantially.  Nothing can prevent all occurrences of misuse of any material object or technology.  We can only minimize it through responsible regulation.
> 
> Which is what we're supposedly discussing.
Click to expand...



And yet every mass shooting, every terrorist attack...had a computer involved in the planning and execution of the event....


----------



## Hugo Furst

G.T. said:


> I think mental health checks could be a slippery slope, who knows but crazies are gunna cray in some way regardless. Lets just raise our kids right.




If they went by prescriptions, I wouldn't have been able to buy a firearm since the late 90s.

I was on version or Wellbutrin to curb smoking


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...



This didn't happen in the future.....

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war. 

---

Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. 

*The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *

As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I await your documentation of that anecdotal report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3,000 people murdered on 9/11...computers were used to move money, communicate between the terrorists, and to buy the tickets for the killers.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see a single computer in the footage of the events that transpired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Computers enabled the killings.......not one gun was used to kill those people....computers were used to move the money, the terrorists, and to make the deaths happen.....dittos the attack in Nice......84 people murdered, hundreds wounded.....and though the man had a gun...the people were murdered with the truck...but he used a computer.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so did airplanes, and I saw several of those.  Those are both registered and highly regulated.  But that only reduces the misuse substantially.  Nothing can prevent all occurrences of misuse of any material object or technology.  We can only minimize it through responsible regulation.
> 
> Which is what we're supposedly discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet every mass shooting, every terrorist attack...had a computer involved in the planning and execution of the event....
Click to expand...

Yep.  Our best efforts can only minimize the damage people do to each other by every means imaginable.  We can't eliminate it.

So we give up and say, "NO RULES!"  Or we act like adults?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
Click to expand...


those that ignore history, are doomed to repeat it


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This didn't happen in the future.....
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict.
> 
> *The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
Click to expand...

I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3,000 people murdered on 9/11...computers were used to move money, communicate between the terrorists, and to buy the tickets for the killers.........
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see a single computer in the footage of the events that transpired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Computers enabled the killings.......not one gun was used to kill those people....computers were used to move the money, the terrorists, and to make the deaths happen.....dittos the attack in Nice......84 people murdered, hundreds wounded.....and though the man had a gun...the people were murdered with the truck...but he used a computer.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so did airplanes, and I saw several of those.  Those are both registered and highly regulated.  But that only reduces the misuse substantially.  Nothing can prevent all occurrences of misuse of any material object or technology.  We can only minimize it through responsible regulation.
> 
> Which is what we're supposedly discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet every mass shooting, every terrorist attack...had a computer involved in the planning and execution of the event....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Our best efforts can only minimize the damage people do to each other by every means imaginable.  We can't eliminate it.
> 
> So we give up and say, "NO RULES!"  Or we act like adults?
Click to expand...



again.....with that whole....if you don't want extreme gun control then you don't want laws.......

What is it with you guys.....

When someone commits a crime with a gun....lock them up for 30 years.  This actually works...and has the added value of not bothering law abiding gun owners.

If a felon is caught with a gun....you lock them up....again, this doesn't impact normal gun owners...

We can already do the above with existing laws.........and it actually works everytime you do it....


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> 
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This didn't happen in the future.....
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict.
> 
> *The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.
Click to expand...



Magazines over 10 rounds in California....if you are caught with one when the new law goes into effect you can be arrested......Rifles with detachable magazines in New York......you have to sell it, or turn it in......


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This didn't happen in the future.....
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict.
> 
> *The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Magazines over 10 rounds in California....if you are caught with one when the new law goes into effect you can be arrested......Rifles with detachable magazines in New York......you have to sell it, or turn it in......
Click to expand...

Precisely.  It's up to you what you do with contraband.  There's no confiscation.  Never has been and can't be - it's logistically impossible, so get that out of your head.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see a single computer in the footage of the events that transpired.
> 
> 
> 
> To lock up a criminal with a gun we must first make it illegal for him to have it.  Remember those background checks and registration we talked about?  As long as the criminal has a right to possess the gun as a citizen, we can't do a damned thing about it.
> 
> 
> Computers enabled the killings.......not one gun was used to kill those people....computers were used to move the money, the terrorists, and to make the deaths happen.....dittos the attack in Nice......84 people murdered, hundreds wounded.....and though the man had a gun...the people were murdered with the truck...but he used a computer.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so did airplanes, and I saw several of those.  Those are both registered and highly regulated.  But that only reduces the misuse substantially.  Nothing can prevent all occurrences of misuse of any material object or technology.  We can only minimize it through responsible regulation.
> 
> Which is what we're supposedly discussing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet every mass shooting, every terrorist attack...had a computer involved in the planning and execution of the event....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  Our best efforts can only minimize the damage people do to each other by every means imaginable.  We can't eliminate it.
> 
> So we give up and say, "NO RULES!"  Or we act like adults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again.....with that whole....if you don't want extreme gun control then you don't want laws.......
> 
> What is it with you guys.....
> 
> When someone commits a crime with a gun....lock them up for 30 years.  This actually works...and has the added value of not bothering law abiding gun owners.
> 
> If a felon is caught with a gun....you lock them up....again, this doesn't impact normal gun owners...
> 
> We can already do the above with existing laws.........and it actually works everytime you do it....
Click to expand...


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about protections against the government....as Charles Cooke wrote in National Review..to think the Bill of Rights that defends individual liberties would give a right to the Government to control guns through a militia is a joke.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not gun control through the militia.  It's national defense and providing the justification for the arming members of the militia.
Click to expand...



Psst--News break

YOu don't have to belong to a militia to own a firearm.

haven't since the Constitution was signed


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...


   The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This didn't happen in the future.....
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict.
> 
> *The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Magazines over 10 rounds in California....if you are caught with one when the new law goes into effect you can be arrested......Rifles with detachable magazines in New York......you have to sell it, or turn it in......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Precisely.  It's up to you what you do with contraband.  There's no confiscation.  Never has been and can't be - it's logistically impossible, so get that out of your head.
Click to expand...



Sell your gun or turn it in or go to jail.........that isn't a ban according to you?


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm sure I'm not alone in being affected by the stop sign at the end of my street.  Not just once or twice in my life, but every day.
> 
> The _horror..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
Click to expand...

I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This didn't happen in the future.....
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict.
> 
> *The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Magazines over 10 rounds in California....if you are caught with one when the new law goes into effect you can be arrested......Rifles with detachable magazines in New York......you have to sell it, or turn it in......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Precisely.  It's up to you what you do with contraband.  There's no confiscation.  Never has been and can't be - it's logistically impossible, so get that out of your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sell your gun or turn it in or go to jail.........that isn't a ban according to you?
Click to expand...

 We were talking about confiscation, not bans

You sure are wriggling a lot.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Germans can repeat German history.
> 
> it is when it leads to confiscation of a right....also.......criminals do not have to register guns.......registering a gun violates our 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination........so you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those that ignore history, are doomed to repeat it
Click to expand...


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This didn't happen in the future.....
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict.
> 
> *The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Magazines over 10 rounds in California....if you are caught with one when the new law goes into effect you can be arrested......Rifles with detachable magazines in New York......you have to sell it, or turn it in......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Precisely.  It's up to you what you do with contraband.  There's no confiscation.  Never has been and can't be - it's logistically impossible, so get that out of your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sell your gun or turn it in or go to jail.........that isn't a ban according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were talking about confiscation, not bans
> 
> You sure are wriggling a lot.
Click to expand...



Wrong....you don't have to kick in all the doors at once.......Britain didn't, and Australia didn't yet they still confiscated guns....turn them in or be arrested.......


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does it have to be said?
> Driving is not a Constitutional right.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
Click to expand...


HIllarious


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We registered millions of items in this country.  How many of them have been since confiscated?  When has _*anything ever been confiscated*_?
> 
> Where do you come up with these groundless fears?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
Click to expand...

 The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.


----------



## JoeB131

oldsoul said:


> A little phrase comes to mind... "shall not be infringed." So, I guess what you are suggesting is a constitutional amendment fundamentally changing, or completely removing, the 2nd. Am I on the right road here?



i think we shouldn't consider the words of people who owned slaves and bled themselves when they were sick as authorities on how we should live now. 

Hey, i might even grant, in 1787, armed citizens were even a good idea. 

Today- not so much.  To much has changed.  



oldsoul said:


> Seeing as you did not provide a link to your source information on Germany, I took it upon myself to do a quick Google search (about 1 minute), and found an interesting, albeit possibly casual, correlation:



This is why I'm not going to spend a lot of time in this thread... because it ALWAYS something else with you guys.  IT's ALWAYS anything but the obvious- that they don't let anyone buy a gun, so you have less bad people doing bad things with them.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> 
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
Click to expand...


  Shall not be infringed...


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Groundless....?  Germany 1930s.....guns of political enemies of the socialists confiscated.  Britain...after the rare mass shooting....banned and confiscated guns.  Australia....confiscated guns.....the last 2  within the last 20 years.....
> 
> Mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to unarmed people...the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 90s........only happened because the civilian populations were unarmed...I posted a thread about that this week.
> 
> 
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
Click to expand...



I agree.....what do you propose then?

I believe in this.....

--background checks at gun stores and for licensed dealers at gun shows.....checks for private sales requires registering guns....which I do not support

--if you commit a crime with a gun, you get 30 years in prison

--if you are a felon and are a caught buying, selling, owning,  or carrying a gun....30 years.

And there you have it.....we can update for mental health issues....dangeorusly mentally ill people...but only after we figure out how to do it without having the system exploited by anti gunners.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you stick close to home, where we don't confiscate stuff, unless you can provide examples of things we have confiscated over the past 250 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.  It was entirely up to the individual.  No force involved.
> 
> It's no different than when another of our arms was generally banned - switchblade knives.  Keep 'em, toss them, turn them in.  Your choice.  No force involved.  No demonstrations.  No rioting in the streets...
> 
> 
> Magazines over 10 rounds in California....if you are caught with one when the new law goes into effect you can be arrested......Rifles with detachable magazines in New York......you have to sell it, or turn it in......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Precisely.  It's up to you what you do with contraband.  There's no confiscation.  Never has been and can't be - it's logistically impossible, so get that out of your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sell your gun or turn it in or go to jail.........that isn't a ban according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were talking about confiscation, not bans
> 
> You sure are wriggling a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....you don't have to kick in all the doors at once.......Britain didn't, and Australia didn't yet they still confiscated guns....turn them in or be arrested.......
Click to expand...


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is registration of anything constitutionally prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
Click to expand...

Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
Click to expand...



and yet you still don't explain what common sense gun control is..........


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed...
Click to expand...

 Which is why we're discussing registration, not general prohibition.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany?  What is your fascination with German history and what is its relevance to the issue in the US today?  Is it this Trump fellow in the news that's got some of you thinking a lot about Germany?
> 
> If so, stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.....what do you propose then?
Click to expand...

 Read my first post in this thread.  I answered that question in its entirety.  Everything else I've posted since has apparently been a cyber 2x4.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you still don't explain what common sense gun control is..........
Click to expand...

 Explained in my first post.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
Click to expand...



more modern view?

You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?

I'll be dead before that happens


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.....what do you propose then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read my first post in this thread.  I answered that question in its entirety.  Everything else I've posted since has apparently been a cyber 2x4.
Click to expand...



only if it's made of foam


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.....what do you propose then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read my first post in this thread.  I answered that question in its entirety.  Everything else I've posted since has apparently been a cyber 2x4.
Click to expand...



Thank you for participating.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
Click to expand...



Yes....the Europe had a more modern view of gun control in the 1920s.....they all cited every single gun law you guys want to create here.....

20 years later 12 million unarmed Europeans were marched into gas chambers....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your trust in government is touching...
> But I'll trust in the intelligence of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over some clod on the internet thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes far more than intelligence to foresee the society created hundreds of years into the future when a Bill of Rights is prevented from keeping up with the times.
> 
> But, again, we're off-topic.  We were discussing gun control, not the 2nd Amendment.  The right to bear arms is alive and well and under-regulated, which is the subject of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd is what gun rights are all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right is not in question.  The degree of regulation is what we're discussing, no matter how much you try to muddy the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why we're discussing registration, not general prohibition.
Click to expand...


  Which of course is infringement.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more modern view?
> 
> You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?
> 
> I'll be dead before that happens
Click to expand...

You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be.  You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more modern view?
> 
> You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?
> 
> I'll be dead before that happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be.  You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.
Click to expand...



9 politically appointed lawyers..........not going to trust my Constitution to them.....


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The commander of your well-regulated militia will explain its application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....the Europe had a more modern view of gun control in the 1920s.....they all cited every single gun law you guys want to create here.....
> 
> 20 years later 12 million unarmed Europeans were marched into gas chambers....
Click to expand...

Oh, get off it.  Now you're just being silly.

England used to hang pickpockets.  France used the guillotine.  Countries all over the globe threw people in debt into prisons.

Aren't you terrified that we're going to do these things in the US because, at some time, somewhere, someone did that to someone else?

Get a grip.  You're coming across as hysterical, which, BTW, is the last sort of person who should be armed.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don/t know much about the 2nd, I  see
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more modern view?
> 
> You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?
> 
> I'll be dead before that happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be.  You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.
Click to expand...



and neither do you.

Wisdom?

If SCOTUS change laws concerning the 2nd too much, you're going to need to change the 2nd.

and that is going to take more than the left can do alone


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more modern view?
> 
> You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?
> 
> I'll be dead before that happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be.  You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 9 politically appointed lawyers..........not going to trust my Constitution to them.....
Click to expand...

They all just happen to be lawyers right now.  There's no requirement that they be.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore that unnecessary remark and remind you that bans against interracial marriage passed constitutional muster as well, until it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more modern view?
> 
> You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?
> 
> I'll be dead before that happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be.  You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and neither do you.
> 
> Wisdom?
> 
> If SCOTUS change laws concerning the 2nd too much, you're going to need to change the 2nd.
> 
> and that is going to take more than the left can do alone
Click to expand...

There's no need to change something when a reviewed and reconsidered interpretation serves the purpose.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
    If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
    Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?

   I mean really,what sounds like the better path?


----------



## flacaltenn

*This thread has been out of CDZ and into Gen Discuss. It is too confrontational to be a CDZ debate. 

Please obey the rules of the new forum. Trolling and excessive personal abuse is still an infract. *


----------



## 2aguy

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
> If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
> Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?
> 
> I mean really,what sounds like the better path?




They don't care about criminals......they vote democrat........gun owners...they hate them.....so talking truth, facts and reality mean nothing to the gun grabbers.....


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
> If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
> Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?
> 
> I mean really,what sounds like the better path?


 Your stubbornness has never been in question.  

I've not attempted to sway you to my way of thinking, only to answer the question posed in the OP, and most of what followed can only be collectively described as "I don't like you answer".

Tough.  Asking questions about hot-button topics can cause that.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> HIllarious
> 
> 
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> more modern view?
> 
> You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?
> 
> I'll be dead before that happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be.  You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and neither do you.
> 
> Wisdom?
> 
> If SCOTUS change laws concerning the 2nd too much, you're going to need to change the 2nd.
> 
> and that is going to take more than the left can do alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to change something when a reviewed and reconsidered interpretation serves the purpose.
Click to expand...



You really don't understand the gun culture, do you?

YOU have NO idea what Obama and HIllary, Bloomberg, and the like want to really do to gun owners, do you.

Do you consider this fair?

Now The Obama Administration Is After Gunsmiths?

Just a start


----------



## Al Azar

flacaltenn said:


> *This thread has been out of CDZ and into Gen Discuss. It is too confrontational to be a CDZ debate.
> 
> Please obey the rules of the new forum. Trolling and excessive personal abuse is still an infract. *


I think we've exhausted the topic.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
> If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
> Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?
> 
> I mean really,what sounds like the better path?
> 
> 
> 
> Your stubbornness has never been in question.
> 
> I've not attempted to sway you to my way of thinking, only to answer the question posed in the OP, and most of what followed can only be collectively described as "I don't like you answer".
> 
> Tough.  Asking questions about hot-button topics can cause that.
Click to expand...


  Just trying to save you and your buddies from some heart ache.


----------



## Al Azar

WillHaftawaite said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to maintain your sense of humor when the Supreme Court takes a more modern view of the 2nd.  Until then, we'll settle for responsible gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm appalled that there is a mindset in this country that can be described as "gun culture".
> 
> more modern view?
> 
> You mean when the bed wetters are finally able to take that mean nasty loud firearms away from law abiding citizens, and law and an inch at a time?
> 
> I'll be dead before that happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to admit that judicial wisdom changes over time, slow as it may be.  You have no constitutional right to it coinciding with your personal viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and neither do you.
> 
> Wisdom?
> 
> If SCOTUS change laws concerning the 2nd too much, you're going to need to change the 2nd.
> 
> and that is going to take more than the left can do alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to change something when a reviewed and reconsidered interpretation serves the purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't understand the gun culture, do you?
> 
> YOU have NO idea what Obama and HIllary, Bloomberg, and the like want to really do to gun owners, do you.
> 
> Do you consider this fair?
> 
> Now The Obama Administration Is After Gunsmiths?
> 
> Just a start
Click to expand...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread has been out of CDZ and into Gen Discuss. It is too confrontational to be a CDZ debate.
> 
> Please obey the rules of the new forum. Trolling and excessive personal abuse is still an infract. *
> 
> 
> 
> I think we've exhausted the topic.
Click to expand...


  You being new and all I guess you havent realized this topic has been decided long ago.
  And your side lost.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
> If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
> Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?
> 
> I mean really,what sounds like the better path?
> 
> 
> 
> Your stubbornness has never been in question.
> 
> I've not attempted to sway you to my way of thinking, only to answer the question posed in the OP, and most of what followed can only be collectively described as "I don't like you answer".
> 
> Tough.  Asking questions about hot-button topics can cause that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to save you and your buddies from some heart ache.
Click to expand...

 Avoiding being shot on the heart is the idea.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread has been out of CDZ and into Gen Discuss. It is too confrontational to be a CDZ debate.
> 
> Please obey the rules of the new forum. Trolling and excessive personal abuse is still an infract. *
> 
> 
> 
> I think we've exhausted the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being new and all I guess you havent realized this topic has been decided long ago.
> And your side lost.
Click to expand...

 That suggests that reviving it is no more than trolling.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread has been out of CDZ and into Gen Discuss. It is too confrontational to be a CDZ debate.
> 
> Please obey the rules of the new forum. Trolling and excessive personal abuse is still an infract. *
> 
> 
> 
> I think we've exhausted the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You being new and all I guess you havent realized this topic has been decided long ago.
> And your side lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That suggests that reviving it is no more than trolling.
Click to expand...


   You said it,not me.....but it is accurate.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
> If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
> Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?
> 
> I mean really,what sounds like the better path?
> 
> 
> 
> Your stubbornness has never been in question.
> 
> I've not attempted to sway you to my way of thinking, only to answer the question posed in the OP, and most of what followed can only be collectively described as "I don't like you answer".
> 
> Tough.  Asking questions about hot-button topics can cause that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to save you and your buddies from some heart ache.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Avoiding being shot on the heart is the idea.
Click to expand...


   Why? Are you a criminal?


----------



## alang1216

2aguy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but would add a mandatory training class and "driving" test to ensure you know how and when to use the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> And a mandatory class on u.s. Government before you vote?  How about a literacy test before you vote?
Click to expand...

Your voting is unlikely to get me killed so tests are unnecessary, optional classes on government might be a good idea considering the government we currently have.

Any other mandatory training you would oppose?  Car, truck, or pilot license?  Police or soldiers?  Teacher or doctor?


----------



## Crixus

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair
> 
> 1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
> 2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
> 3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
> 4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.
> 
> By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
Click to expand...



1. Really, its kind of already like that. Google "form 4473" and read the questions. I know DUI can cost you your rights in some states, violent crime and most felonies get your rights pilled to.

2. Thats dumb. An ex? "yes ma'am/sir your ex wants to buy a gun, you cool with that ?" Yup that would really speed things up and make everyone safe,I mean its not like I would buy a gun illegally if I were up to no good or anything.

3. All guns at some point were designed for military use from flintlock to the Krag Jorgensen to the AR15 and AK47. And all have been ubiquitously by civilians as personal weapons for whatever reason legitimate or not. The answer kind of ignores the OP.

4. So if your the person I would have to "show cause" to, what would I have to show to procure say, I Remington 870 in 12 gauge.

*German cinema attacker takes hostages before being killed by police*

Germany cinema attack: Suspect killed by police in Viernheim  - CNN.com

Gun laws dont matter to a person hellbent on breaking the law no matter the country.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but would add a mandatory training class and "driving" test to ensure you know how and when to use the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> And a mandatory class on u.s. Government before you vote?  How about a literacy test before you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your voting is unlikely to get me killed so tests are unnecessary, optional classes on government might be a good idea considering the government we currently have.
> 
> Any other mandatory training you would oppose?  Car, truck, or pilot license?  Police or soldiers?  Teacher or doctor?
Click to expand...



gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......


Guys like you did use Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting.....different time..different Right, same desire to control someone else....


----------



## Dale Smith

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair
> 
> 1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
> 2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
> 3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
> 4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.
> 
> By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
Click to expand...



Hey, Slow Joe...ever heard of "Agenda 21" or "Agenda 2030?". It was a sustainable development act proposed at the Earth Summit in Rio the Summer of 1992 but it's roots go all the way back to the Iron Mountain Report  that led to the offshoot U.N group of wealthy elites known as the "Club Of Rome"....you might want to do a little research about such members as Maurice Strong and his quotes. What your globalist masters believe is that an affluent middle class and their lifestyle is "unsustainable" due to high meat intake and consumerism.....now mind you, he said nothing about the mass consumption of elitists like himself because after all, they are part of the privileged class and their "carbon footprint" doesn't matter.  Land ownership (unless you are an elitist) means income inequality and that will not be tolerated under Agenda 21. Simply google "Agenda 21 Map, U.S.A" and then compare it to the amount of land USA.INC currently claims as theirs....compare and contrast as it were..... Now you know why farmers and ranchers lands like the Bundys and the Hammonds (for example) are being targeted. This land grab has been going on for some time...restricting farmers and ranchers on how they may use their own land even to the point that they are not allowed to create ponds or even collect rainwater on their own fucking property. Agenda 21 and the U.N mandate will return the land of those that own it to return "Mother Earth to her proper balance" but there is a glitch in their plans...too many Americans own guns and too many Americans have yet to allow themselves to be "subservient" to "da gubermint". The right to protect one's self and their property is not a privilege because privileges can be taken away at the whim of "da gubermint". I do not exist on this planet because of a benevolent "gubermint". My right to exist comes from my creator which is God almighty...I answer to him and him alone. I do not have to answer to "da gubermint" that is owned by international bankers The reason for all these false flag shootings and staged events is nothing but a psy-op to try and sway the masses to give up their basic rights. The day that patriots agree to acquiesce to  the will of  "da gubermint" is the day that what is left of this republic dies. Personally, I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Every false flag shooting seems to backfire because people only dig in deeper....good on 'em.


----------



## alang1216

2aguy said:


> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......


I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.


----------



## Dale Smith

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
Click to expand...



"Well armed militia"......to me that equals high capacity, low capacity magazines...whatever it takes to keep people free. A well armed militia does not mean the military that is at the leisure of this corporate controlled "gubermint" that is owned by the same banking oligarchs that caused the Revolutionary War to begin with. I know more than you...I have made it my business to know more than most and I am happy to share that knowledge....passing it on is the best thing I can do in honor of those that did the heavy lifting that were complicit in waking me up. I do not take these things lightly and neither should you.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
Click to expand...



Yep.........the Right to keep and Bear Arms...they are part of the Arms that are protected....

Please...explain why you want to ban them.........

Mass shooters don't need them to kill...

Criminals will get what they want....

Normal, law abiding people will not use them for crime and may need them to survive an attack....

So again...you fall in with criminals over law abiding people.......

What a genius.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
Click to expand...



Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....


----------



## alang1216

Dale Smith said:


> whatever it takes to keep people free.


So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?


----------



## alang1216

2aguy said:


> Yep.........the Right to keep and Bear Arms...they are part of the Arms that are protected...


So you know the intent of the founding fathers?  You're welcome to your interpretation but don't confuse it with fact.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
Click to expand...



Every single day.  Europe gave up their guns after World War 2.....20 years later 12 million of them were murdered in gas chambers.

Mexicans allowed their government to have the guns....now the police and military working for the drug cartels are murdering unarmed Mexicans by the 10s of thousands every year...right now...right across our border.....

Unarmed people cannot stop mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide......


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.........the Right to keep and Bear Arms...they are part of the Arms that are protected...
> 
> 
> 
> So you know the intent of the founding fathers?  You're welcome to your interpretation but don't confuse it with fact.
Click to expand...



Yes...I know...I can read and I have read the 2nd Amendment.......


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
> If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
> Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?
> 
> I mean really,what sounds like the better path?
> 
> 
> 
> Your stubbornness has never been in question.
> 
> I've not attempted to sway you to my way of thinking, only to answer the question posed in the OP, and most of what followed can only be collectively described as "I don't like you answer".
> 
> Tough.  Asking questions about hot-button topics can cause that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to save you and your buddies from some heart ache.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Avoiding being shot on the heart is the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Are you a criminal?
Click to expand...




2aguy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
Click to expand...

 Sounds like a justification for allowing everyone access to nuclear weapons.  The military only works for us, so we should be able to handle the same weaponry, right?  We're equally trained, fit and answer to a similar chain of command.

Right?


----------



## Dale Smith

alang1216 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it n thetakes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
Click to expand...


It's keeping us free now. Do you think "da gubermint' should be more powerful  than their sheeple???


----------



## alang1216

2aguy said:


> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....


Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons...  Is there no end?


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
Click to expand...



This happened in the 1990s.......

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war. 

---

*Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - 
*
As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> 
> 
> Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons...  Is there no end?
Click to expand...



Sorry.......they allowed cannon on ships in private hands....

But for our purposes.....whatever the police have, and whatever small arms the infantry in the U.S. have...that is the bottom of what we get...we can then debate the rest.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> 
> 
> Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons...  Is there no end?
Click to expand...


  Thank God all of those things are legal....


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look here Al...nothing you or your progressive buddies do or say will stop those of us who hold the Constitution dear from exercising our 2nd amendment rights.
> If you and those like you try there will be pushback,push to hard and it's going to get nasty.
> Is that better than stopping the real criminals with common sense sentencing laws for those who actually use guns in an illegal manner?
> 
> I mean really,what sounds like the better path?
> 
> 
> 
> Your stubbornness has never been in question.
> 
> I've not attempted to sway you to my way of thinking, only to answer the question posed in the OP, and most of what followed can only be collectively described as "I don't like you answer".
> 
> Tough.  Asking questions about hot-button topics can cause that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to save you and your buddies from some heart ache.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Avoiding being shot on the heart is the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Are you a criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a justification for allowing everyone access to nuclear weapons.  The military only works for us, so we should be able to handle the same weaponry, right?  We're equally trained, fit and answer to a similar chain of command.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...



Wow.....the stupidity is strong with this one..........

Arms are not crew served weapons....and a nuclear weapon, by it's very nature is a crew served weapon...........not a small arm....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

alang1216 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
Click to expand...


   How the hell do you think we won our independence?


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stubbornness has never been in question.
> 
> I've not attempted to sway you to my way of thinking, only to answer the question posed in the OP, and most of what followed can only be collectively described as "I don't like you answer".
> 
> Tough.  Asking questions about hot-button topics can cause that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just trying to save you and your buddies from some heart ache.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Avoiding being shot on the heart is the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Are you a criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a justification for allowing everyone access to nuclear weapons.  The military only works for us, so we should be able to handle the same weaponry, right?  We're equally trained, fit and answer to a similar chain of command.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.....the stupidity is strong with this one..........
> 
> Arms are not crew served weapons....and a nuclear weapon, by it's very nature is a crew served weapon...........not a small arm....
Click to expand...

"Small" appears nowhere in the constitution.  Try again.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
Click to expand...

 The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.

Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
Click to expand...


  What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?


----------



## alang1216

2aguy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every single day.  Europe gave up their guns after World War 2.....20 years later 12 million of them were murdered in gas chambers.
> 
> Mexicans allowed their government to have the guns....now the police and military working for the drug cartels are murdering unarmed Mexicans by the 10s of thousands every year...right now...right across our border.....
> 
> Unarmed people cannot stop mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide......
Click to expand...

I admire your ideological purity.  So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?


----------



## alang1216

2aguy said:


> Sorry.......they allowed cannon on ships in private hands....
> 
> But for our purposes.....whatever the police have, and whatever small arms the infantry in the U.S. have...that is the bottom of what we get...we can then debate the rest.....


"Allowed" indicates it is not a right.  I'd allow anything if proper permission is obtained.

So you're OK with automatic weapons with grenade launchers?


----------



## alang1216

HereWeGoAgain said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
Click to expand...

I think cannons and the French Navy played a part.


----------



## alang1216

HereWeGoAgain said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> 
> 
> Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons...  Is there no end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God all of those things are legal....
Click to expand...

Legal or protected by the 2nd?


----------



## alang1216

2aguy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
Click to expand...

Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.


----------



## oldsoul

GaryDog said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? how many criminals have been stopped by your beloved gun laws? Huh? How many? I got news for ya, criminals, by definition, don't give a #$*! about your gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want me to give you a tally of the people who DIDN'T shoot someone?   Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I want is for you to stop and THINK. If only criminals have guns, how safe will YOU feel going outside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If our society was less gun-crazy, we'd all be safer.  Period.  Under no scenario of gun control that any liberal I know has proposed would "only criminals have guns."
> 
> STFU with that stupid false narrative.
Click to expand...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin.Guess he was a little too gun crazy for you too.

The sooner liberals realize restricting guns will do NOTHING to make us safer, the better. What will make us safer is to incarcerate those who break the law to the fullest extent of the law, enacting even longer prison terms (to keep repeat offenders off the streets), and make it easier for law abiding citizens to arm themselves. This is the only way we will be safer.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

alang1216 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think cannons and the French Navy played a part.
Click to expand...


  Yeah? Well cannons are legal and with the French being cheese eating surrender monkey's these days I dont see em being much help anymore.


----------



## jon_berzerk

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.
Click to expand...



wonder how that would work out 

if one took the guns away from the good guys 

or any group for that matter


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

alang1216 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> 
> 
> Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons...  Is there no end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God all of those things are legal....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal or protected by the 2nd?
Click to expand...


 Does it really matter? I can own all of em if I want em so it's kinda moot aint it now?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.
Click to expand...


  Muslims are murderous savages.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey laws?  You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?  How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?
> 
> Or ever?
> 
> Save your bumper sticker responses.
Click to expand...




Al Azar said:


> Criminals don't obey laws?


If you dispute this you are crazy.



Al Azar said:


> You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?


It is effective as long as the person stays in prison. However, a "life" term is not what it seems.

"Life imprisonment sentences are rare in the federal criminal justice
system. Virtually all offenders convicted of a federal crime are
released from prison eventually and return to society or, in the
case of illegal aliens, are deported to their country of origin. Yet in
fiscal year 2013 federal judges imposed a sentence of life
imprisonment without parole1 on 153 offenders. Another 168
offenders received a sentence of a specific term of years that was
so long it had the practical effect of being a life sentence.
Although together these offenders represent only 0.4 percent of all
offenders sentenced that year,..." http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...eys/miscellaneous/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf
It's only effective if it's used.
"In most, nearly all cases the judge *sentences* someone who gets *life* in prison to serve a minimum of 15 years." _Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*Life*_*imprisonment*
"
Although Congress abolished parole in the federal prison system, your husband's sentence will be reduced by 54 days per year, after the successful completion of each year, for "good conduct time" pursuant to 18 USC Section 3624(b). While 54 days per year equals a 15% reduction, and such is the percentage that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") states that he will receive, the actual reduction will be approximately 47 days per year, or 13%, based on BOP's interpretation of "official detention:" good conduct time credits will be awarded based on the actual time to be served, not the total sentence. If he is eligible for the Residential Drug Abuse Program ("RDAP"), he will receive an additional possible 12 month reduction for its successful completion, and 6 months of community confinement (a combination of halfway house or "residential re-entry center" and home confinement immediately prior to his beginning his sentence of supervised release. - Joshua Sabert Lowther, Esq., National Federal Defense Group." If given a 15 year sentence in federal case do  - Q&A - Avvo
_



Al Azar said:


> Save your bumper sticker responses.


Bumper sticker responses? How about you explain to me how "...Shall not be infringed." is unclear or debatable.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
Click to expand...

To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
Click to expand...


No.

Voting is a fundamental right to the democratic process.  Gun ownership is not.


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
Click to expand...


What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.


----------



## Coyote

Al Azar said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
Click to expand...


Machine guns are regulated.  Assault style weaponry is not.  There's not a whole lot of difference between the two anymore.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
Click to expand...


    I'm not worried about our military,they tend to be staunch defenders of the Constitution.


----------



## Al Azar

"... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?


Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 
Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.



  Since you apparently missed it the first time....


----------



## Al Azar

Coyote said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Machine guns are regulated.  Assault style weaponry is not.  There's not a whole lot of difference between the two anymore.
Click to expand...

Machine guns are the perfect example of how gun control in the United States works.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not worried about our military,they tend to be staunch defenders of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Then scratch one excuse off your list, and understand that you've just admitted that what the founding fathers intended is no longer valid.


----------



## Coyote

WV passed a concealed carry law recently.

West Virginia legalizes concealed carry without a permit | Fox News
_Beginning June 5, anyone over age 21 who can legally possess a firearm will be allowed to carry it concealed on their person without having to obtain a permit. West Virginia has long allowed permitless open carry but, like most states, required a permit to carry a concealed firearm. With the new law the state will become the eighth in the nation to implement what gun rights activists call “constitutional carry.”


The law also creates a provisional permitting process for those between the ages of 18 and 20 who wish to carry a concealed firearm within the state. Individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 had previously been excluded from the permitting process altogether._​

No permit.

No required training.

18 and up.

That means on  college campus'.....brilliant idea.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.


How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

Perfect.  You're making my case.  Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers.  It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
> How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
> More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.
Click to expand...

When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.  Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect.  You're making my case.  Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers.  It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about states registering, we are talking about the feds doing it. Nice attempt at bait and switch though. Gotta give you props for that.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.


And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect.  You're making my case.  Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers.  It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about states registering, we are talking about the feds doing it. Nice attempt at bait and switch though. Gotta give you props for that.
Click to expand...

Quote anyone mentioning federal registration.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect.  You're making my case.  Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers.  It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about states registering, we are talking about the feds doing it. Nice attempt at bait and switch though. Gotta give you props for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote anyone mentioning federal registration.
Click to expand...

Noone had to. Multiple references to FEDERAL law, with no one saying that's not what they where talking about. Again, nice try.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?
Click to expand...

Back on that old straw man, eh?  Great soundbite, no substance.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect.  You're making my case.  Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers.  It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about states registering, we are talking about the feds doing it. Nice attempt at bait and switch though. Gotta give you props for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote anyone mentioning federal registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noone had to. Multiple references to FEDERAL law, with no one saying that's not what they where talking about. Again, nice try.
Click to expand...

F'rinstance...


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect.  You're making my case.  Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers.  It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are not talking about states registering, we are talking about the feds doing it. Nice attempt at bait and switch though. Gotta give you props for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote anyone mentioning federal registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noone had to. Multiple references to FEDERAL law, with no one saying that's not what they where talking about. Again, nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F'rinstance...
Click to expand...

I will no longer indulge this lame attempt at side tracking.

For the record:
Going forward nothing I say shall be construed to imply I am discussing anything less than Federal level law an/or the COTUS.

There, I am NOT going to discuss states' attempts to regulate guns, their use, or possession of them. If that is what you wish to discuss, create a thread for it.


----------



## Al Azar

Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not worried about our military,they tend to be staunch defenders of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then scratch one excuse off your list, and understand that you've just admitted that what the founding fathers intended is no longer valid.
Click to expand...


  Hardly.
We have the DHS to worry about these days.


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> 
> 
> That's a hardship created by the previous Republican administration.  While I generally agree that we need protection from Republican influence in national policy, I don't think taking up arms against them when they create such humongous executive departments as DHS is an appropriate response.
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not worried about our military,they tend to be staunch defenders of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then scratch one excuse off your list, and understand that you've just admitted that what the founding fathers intended is no longer valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> We have the DHS to worry about these days.
Click to expand...


----------



## Al Azar

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a hardship created by the previous Republican administration.  While I generally agree that we need protection from Republican influence in national policy, I don't think taking up arms against them when they create such humongous executive departments as DHS is an appropriate response.
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not worried about our military,they tend to be staunch defenders of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then scratch one excuse off your list, and understand that you've just admitted that what the founding fathers intended is no longer valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> We have the DHS to worry about these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's a hardship created by the previous Republican administration. While I generally agree that we need protection from Republican influence in national policy, I don't think taking up arms against them when they create such humongous executive departments as DHS is an appropriate response.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back on that old straw man, eh?  Great soundbite, no substance.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
Strawman my ass.
There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.

Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?

"Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?






Guess the British weren't much smarter.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back on that old straw man, eh?  Great soundbite, no substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
> Strawman my ass.
> There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.
> 
> Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?
> 
> "Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
> 
> We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
> But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the British weren't much smarter.
Click to expand...

 I thought you wanted to talk about confiscation.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.






Good luck repealing that one...


----------



## GaryDog

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
Click to expand...


Like I said, stupid bumper stickers.  No arguments.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
Click to expand...

 Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back on that old straw man, eh?  Great soundbite, no substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
> Strawman my ass.
> There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.
> 
> Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?
> 
> "Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
> 
> We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
> But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the British weren't much smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you wanted to talk about confiscation.
Click to expand...

There's really no point. It simply does not work.

Now, don't go all, but it did in Australia, on me.




http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/
It merely continued an already established trend.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
Click to expand...

So, you are in support of an end run around the COTUS. I guess I'm not surprised...


----------



## GaryDog

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
Click to expand...


And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias.  No "self defense" right was ever read into it.  No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns.  Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court.  Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)

Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back on that old straw man, eh?  Great soundbite, no substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
> Strawman my ass.
> There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.
> 
> Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?
> 
> "Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
> 
> We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
> But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the British weren't much smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you wanted to talk about confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's really no point. It simply does not work.
Click to expand...

 Which is exactly why no one, anywhere, attempts it.  It's an empty soundbite that has no place in a discussion of gun control.

Unless you're trying to defend an indefensible position.


----------



## oldsoul

GaryDog said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, stupid bumper stickers.  No arguments.
Click to expand...

Kind of like this one?



Here is something for you to think about...


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?
> 
> 
> 
> Back on that old straw man, eh?  Great soundbite, no substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
> Strawman my ass.
> There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.
> 
> Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?
> 
> "Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
> 
> We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
> But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the British weren't much smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you wanted to talk about confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's really no point. It simply does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly why no one, anywhere, attempts it.  It's an empty soundbite that has no place in a discussion of gun control.
> 
> Unless you're trying to defend an indefensible position.
Click to expand...

So, tell the class what a national registry will do to stop gun crimes.
There must be some evidence that registries work right?


----------



## Skull Pilot

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in the First computers are a right?


----------



## oldsoul

GaryDog said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias.  No "self defense" right was ever read into it.  No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns.  Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court.  Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)
> 
> Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.
Click to expand...

And Scalia was wrong. The framers of the COTUS choose their words very carefully, that is why they said "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity there.


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are in support of an end run around the COTUS. I guess I'm not surprised...
Click to expand...

 The court has modified its position on issues as we evolve as a society.  Remember the old days, when only human beings had personhood status, not corporations?

Things change as judicial wisdom changes.  Adapt, or die.


----------



## Skull Pilot

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> 
> 
> Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons...  Is there no end?
Click to expand...


Why not?  People who aren't criminals will not commit crimes with them

And FYI anyone who can pay for an armored car can get one.  No special permit needed


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on that old straw man, eh?  Great soundbite, no substance.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
> Strawman my ass.
> There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.
> 
> Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?
> 
> "Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
> 
> We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
> But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the British weren't much smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you wanted to talk about confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's really no point. It simply does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly why no one, anywhere, attempts it.  It's an empty soundbite that has no place in a discussion of gun control.
> 
> Unless you're trying to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, tell the class what a national registry will do to stop gun crimes.
> There must be some evidence that registries work right?
Click to expand...

 Why would you need a national registry duplicating state registries?


----------



## Skull Pilot

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.
Click to expand...


Well in all honesty Afghanistan has been invaded so many times one can say that their violence was imported


----------



## Skull Pilot

Coyote said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Machine guns are regulated.  Assault style weaponry is not.  There's not a whole lot of difference between the two anymore.
Click to expand...

There only needs to be one difference.

and there is


----------



## Skull Pilot

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
Click to expand...


More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?

No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy


----------



## GaryDog

oldsoul said:


> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias.  No "self defense" right was ever read into it.  No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns.  Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court.  Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)
> 
> Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Scalia was wrong. The framers of the COTUS choose their words very carefully, that is why they said "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity there.
Click to expand...


There were words spoken before the ellipses there you know.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Voting is a fundamental right to the democratic process.  Gun ownership is not.
Click to expand...



gun owning is the only thing that guarantees the voting process....ask any unarmed society when the government decides to ignore the results of an election....


----------



## alang1216

Skull Pilot said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in all honesty Afghanistan has been invaded so many times one can say that their violence was imported
Click to expand...

OK then, can you supply another place/time when everyone was allowed to own and carry weapons that was peaceful?


----------



## Al Azar

Skull Pilot said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
Click to expand...

 And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.

Oh, and no infringement of rights.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every single day.  Europe gave up their guns after World War 2.....20 years later 12 million of them were murdered in gas chambers.
> 
> Mexicans allowed their government to have the guns....now the police and military working for the drug cartels are murdering unarmed Mexicans by the 10s of thousands every year...right now...right across our border.....
> 
> Unarmed people cannot stop mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admire your ideological purity.  So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?
Click to expand...



Yep.   the standard small arms of the infantry and police.......


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.......they allowed cannon on ships in private hands....
> 
> But for our purposes.....whatever the police have, and whatever small arms the infantry in the U.S. have...that is the bottom of what we get...we can then debate the rest.....
> 
> 
> 
> "Allowed" indicates it is not a right.  I'd allow anything if proper permission is obtained.
> 
> So you're OK with automatic weapons with grenade launchers?
Click to expand...



You can get those now.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.
Click to expand...



The ones getting slaughtered in Afghanistan don't have guns.......and you don't have enough good guys with guns to protect the weak......and enforce peace.......


----------



## Al Azar

GaryDog said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias.  No "self defense" right was ever read into it.  No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns.  Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court.  Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)
> 
> Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Scalia was wrong. The framers of the COTUS choose their words very carefully, that is why they said "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were words spoken before the ellipses there you know.
Click to expand...

 Only that inconvenient qualifying clause.


----------



## 2aguy

alang1216 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in all honesty Afghanistan has been invaded so many times one can say that their violence was imported
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK then, can you supply another place/time when everyone was allowed to own and carry weapons that was peaceful?
Click to expand...



The United States.......Sweden.....


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
Click to expand...



and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........

Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?

and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........


----------



## Al Azar

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Voting is a fundamental right to the democratic process.  Gun ownership is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun owning is the only thing that guarantees the voting process....ask any unarmed society when the government decides to ignore the results of an election....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your comments are interesting, but have nothing to do with the discussion, which is gun control.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
Click to expand...



Yep......


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
Click to expand...

 Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
Click to expand...



You have already been proven wrong by actual experience.......40 states allow carrying guns even into places that serve alcohol....and our gun murder rate and gun crime rate went down, not up....

You are wrong.....

Virginia passed concealed carry in bars last year....their bar crime rate went down 5.9%....so you are wrong again......

You guys have trotted out more guns = more crime since the 1990s........in th 1990s there were 200 million guns in private hands...........in 2016 357,000,000 guns in private hands....and our gun murder rate went down by almost 50%.....

you are wrong...nothing you believe is supported by facts or the truth.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
Click to expand...



No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....

I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........

Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?

How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....

I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GaryDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.
> 
> All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you mock* responsible gun control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???  I just did.  Our regulation of machine guns is very effective.  Expand it to include all firearms.  No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Machine guns are regulated.  Assault style weaponry is not.  There's not a whole lot of difference between the two anymore.
Click to expand...



Wrong........you have no ideas what you are talking about.....did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
Click to expand...

 One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
> How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
> More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.  Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.
Click to expand...



If someone has a gun and is a criminal....you can arrest them without needing to register guns......it is already the law.   If the person has a gun....and has no criminal record....again.....there is no need to register that gun.....if he is stopped by police they run his name and birth date...if no record pops up......no arrest is necessary.....

you just want another layer of inneffective paperwork...and more legal jeapordy for gun owners....why is that?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
Click to expand...



We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell do you think we won our independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
Click to expand...


 I see you ignored my response...
Typical of liberals,when it's something they cant answer they ignore it.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
Click to expand...

 If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.


----------



## 2aguy

GaryDog said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a matter of fact, prior to Heller, the 2nd Amendment was basically read to apply only to organized militias.  No "self defense" right was ever read into it.  No justice ever claimed all citizens were entitled to guns.  Such an absurd idea was never contemplated by the court.  Not til Scalia and his "literal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which just so happened to omit the words "well regulated" I guess?)
> 
> Moreover, even Scalia recognized that the decision didn't mean any person should be able to have access to any kind of gun at any time.
Click to expand...



Sorry..that is not true........not even close...the Right to bear arms was recognized in earlier decisions...and actually predates the Bill of Rights.......

But please..keep reminding us that you don't want people to own guns......you and you German cousins believe the same thing?.amd that didn't turn out well for 12 million unarmed Europeans.....or those murdered in the Balkans in the 90s?.all unarmed people who believed their government would protect them...and they probably believed that right up until the gas choked them to death....


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
> How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
> More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.  Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has a gun and is a criminal....you can arrest them without needing to register guns......it is already the law.   If the person has a gun....and has no criminal record....again.....there is no need to register that gun.....if he is stopped by police they run his name and birth date...if no record pops up......no arrest is necessary.....
> 
> you just want another layer of inneffective paperwork...and more legal jeapordy for gun owners....why is that?
Click to expand...

As it stands now, a criminal may have every right to gun ownership because there is no registration requirement.  Such registration doesn't infringe on the rights of a law-abiding citizen but will make it impossible for the criminal to legally possess a gun, increasing the penalty for his misdeeds if he is in possession of a gun.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
> 
> 
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
Click to expand...



How?    There are felons right now...shooting people in Chicago with guns they cannot own or carry......who are not requir d to register those guns...and yet they are carrying them...right now...and shooting people with them....

How does registration physically stop anyone from carrying an unregistered gun?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
> 
> 
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
Click to expand...


  How do you figure?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
> How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
> More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.  Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has a gun and is a criminal....you can arrest them without needing to register guns......it is already the law.   If the person has a gun....and has no criminal record....again.....there is no need to register that gun.....if he is stopped by police they run his name and birth date...if no record pops up......no arrest is necessary.....
> 
> you just want another layer of inneffective paperwork...and more legal jeapordy for gun owners....why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As it stands now, a criminal may have every right to gun ownership because there is no registration requirement.  Such registration doesn't infringe on the rights of a law-abiding citizen but will make it impossible for the criminal to legally possess a gun, increasing the penalty for his misdeeds if he is in possession of a gun.
Click to expand...



Felons are already barred from legally buying, owning or carrying a gun....if they are stopped by police and found with any gun...they can be arrested and sent to prison....right now...under existing law........

Registering the guns of law abiding gun owners does not add to that process....in any way, shape or form..........


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
Click to expand...

We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?


----------



## 2aguy

I swear....they type things and think that makes them actually exist.......they type ....gun registration will stop criminals.......and that is it...that means it works........no explanation of how it physically works...they type it so that means it works.......

They do not have fully formed reasoning centers in their brains...


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.
> 
> Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you ignored my response...
> Typical of liberals,when it's something they cant answer they ignore it.
Click to expand...

I addressed your one-word response by showing how it conflicted with a statement of one of your fellow travelers.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
Click to expand...



That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How?    There are felons right now...shooting people in Chicago with guns they cannot own or carry......who are not requir d to register those guns...and yet they are carrying them...right now...and shooting people with them....
> 
> How does registration physically stop anyone from carrying an unregistered gun?
Click to expand...

 I don't see how it could.  What an extraordinary question.

See post #10:  ... serious penalties for possession of firearm not registered the bearer...


----------



## Al Azar

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure?
Click to expand...

Sigh.  Post #10, step 3.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
> How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
> More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.  Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has a gun and is a criminal....you can arrest them without needing to register guns......it is already the law.   If the person has a gun....and has no criminal record....again.....there is no need to register that gun.....if he is stopped by police they run his name and birth date...if no record pops up......no arrest is necessary.....
> 
> you just want another layer of inneffective paperwork...and more legal jeapordy for gun owners....why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As it stands now, a criminal may have every right to gun ownership because there is no registration requirement.  Such registration doesn't infringe on the rights of a law-abiding citizen but will make it impossible for the criminal to legally possess a gun, increasing the penalty for his misdeeds if he is in possession of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Felons are already barred from legally buying, owning or carrying a gun....if they are stopped by police and found with any gun...they can be arrested and sent to prison....right now...under existing law........
> 
> Registering the guns of law abiding gun owners does not add to that process....in any way, shape or form..........
Click to expand...

We were talking about criminals.  Now you want to change your argument to a discussion of felons.

No matter.  Serious penalties for illegal possession, per post #10, step 3, will get these criminals (including felons) off the street and in prison where they belong.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
Click to expand...

 For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.

If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> 
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How?    There are felons right now...shooting people in Chicago with guns they cannot own or carry......who are not requir d to register those guns...and yet they are carrying them...right now...and shooting people with them....
> 
> How does registration physically stop anyone from carrying an unregistered gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how it could.  What an extraordinary question.
> 
> See post #10:  ... serious penalties for possession of firearm not registered the bearer...
Click to expand...



Again.......that doesn't answer my question.......we can already arrest criminals who have guns...they do not need to be registered to do that...we can do that right now.......


If a normal gun owner decides to take his gun....even if it is registered like you want...and commit a crime.....we can arrest them...and registering the gun did not stop the crime or help to arrest the guy....he committed a crime with the gun...he can be arrested already...no need to register gums.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces.  That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you ignored my response...
> Typical of liberals,when it's something they cant answer they ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I addressed your one-word response by showing how it conflicted with a statement of one of your fellow travelers.
Click to expand...


LOL...  You cant even keep up with your lies anymore.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> 
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...



Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........

Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> 
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh.  Post #10, step 3.
Click to expand...


   No need to go back and look at something that's bullshit.
Registering firearms does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> 
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...



The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....


----------



## Skull Pilot

alang1216 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever it takes to keep people free.
> 
> 
> 
> So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't?  When have firearms kept American people free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This happened in the 1990s.......
> 
> How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.
> 
> ---
> 
> *Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. - *
> 
> As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan.  Guns have not brought peace there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well in all honesty Afghanistan has been invaded so many times one can say that their violence was imported
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK then, can you supply another place/time when everyone was allowed to own and carry weapons that was peaceful?
Click to expand...


We're quite peaceful now right here in this country for the most part all of our violence is concentrated in a few urban areas


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How?    There are felons right now...shooting people in Chicago with guns they cannot own or carry......who are not requir d to register those guns...and yet they are carrying them...right now...and shooting people with them....
> 
> How does registration physically stop anyone from carrying an unregistered gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how it could.  What an extraordinary question.
> 
> See post #10:  ... serious penalties for possession of firearm not registered the bearer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again.......that doesn't answer my question.......we can already arrest criminals who have guns...they do not need to be registered to do that...we can do that right now.......
> 
> 
> If a normal gun owner decides to take his gun....even if it is registered like you want...and commit a crime.....we can arrest them...and registering the gun did not stop the crime or help to arrest the guy....he committed a crime with the gun...he can be arrested already...no need to register gums.....
Click to expand...

 Now you're switching to arrests?  No.

Despite what someone may be convicted of, if he was also in possession of an unregistered firearm he can be put away for much longer.  That's the point of registering firearms.


----------



## IsaacNewton

I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.

What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.

As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
Click to expand...

 Thank you for expressing your opinion on this.  The rest of us will continue the discussion.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are in support of an end run around the COTUS. I guess I'm not surprised...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The court has modified its position on issues as we evolve as a society.  Remember the old days, when only human beings had personhood status, not corporations?
> 
> Things change as judicial wisdom changes.  Adapt, or die.
Click to expand...

So now you want me to agree with you or die. Seems legit.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Al Azar said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it.  I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
> _Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.
> 
> 
> “Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”
> 
> 
> Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.
> 
> 
> “The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”
> 
> After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.
> 
> 
> The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.
> 
> 
> Why? The reason was pretty simple.
> 
> “We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”_​
> You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my mind common sense gun control  would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws.  I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun.  I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised.  Universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents?  Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions?  And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway?  Low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More people than ever are applying for and getting concealed carry permits
> Have there been running gun fights in the streets by people with legal CCW permits?
> 
> No in fact CCW permit holders tend to be some of the most peaceful law abiding people in society who would rather avoid a situation where they might have to use their weapons than play tough guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they have traditionally received those permits following background checks, firearms registration and training.
> 
> Oh, and no infringement of rights.
Click to expand...


Most people I know have no problem making sure felons cannot get guns and I didn't say anything about the permitting process did I?

But since I did have to submit to multiple background checks, fingerprinting and pay for safety classes why can't I have a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
> How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
> More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.  Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If someone has a gun and is a criminal....you can arrest them without needing to register guns......it is already the law.   If the person has a gun....and has no criminal record....again.....there is no need to register that gun.....if he is stopped by police they run his name and birth date...if no record pops up......no arrest is necessary.....
> 
> you just want another layer of inneffective paperwork...and more legal jeapordy for gun owners....why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As it stands now, a criminal may have every right to gun ownership because there is no registration requirement.  Such registration doesn't infringe on the rights of a law-abiding citizen but will make it impossible for the criminal to legally possess a gun, increasing the penalty for his misdeeds if he is in possession of a gun.
Click to expand...


So a criminal will buy a gun illegally and register it?


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, the British, the Australians, and others.
> Strawman my ass.
> There is no reason for the government to know where the guns are other than eventual confiscation.
> 
> Ever wonder why Canada gave up on the registration of long guns?
> 
> "Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
> 
> We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."
> But, then again we are talking about the Canadians after all, we are SOOOO much smarter than them, right? We would do it right, and make it effective, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the British weren't much smarter.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you wanted to talk about confiscation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's really no point. It simply does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly why no one, anywhere, attempts it.  It's an empty soundbite that has no place in a discussion of gun control.
> 
> Unless you're trying to defend an indefensible position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, tell the class what a national registry will do to stop gun crimes.
> There must be some evidence that registries work right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you need a national registry duplicating state registries?
Click to expand...

Not all states have registries, therefore it would not be duplicating anything. Aside from that, I don't want a national, or state registry. Have you not been following my argument against any registry?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep......
> 
> 
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...


What reason do you have to know what guns I own?  None.  I passed all the background checks that have been asked of me and have proven that I am not a criminal.  You have no valid need to know if I own or what guns I own.

How will registering my guns stop gun crime committed by criminals with illegally obtained and unregistered guns?


----------



## Al Azar

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  One down.  Have a nice day while the rest of us discuss gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are in support of an end run around the COTUS. I guess I'm not surprised...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The court has modified its position on issues as we evolve as a society.  Remember the old days, when only human beings had personhood status, not corporations?
> 
> Things change as judicial wisdom changes.  Adapt, or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want me to agree with you or die. Seems legit.
Click to expand...

 I think that if you were capable of reading what is written rather than what you wish were written, you'd have thrown in the towel long ago.

The fact is that we do exercise gun control in this country and the only argument is over his much is necessary.  We have differing opinions and the prevailing view will become the law of the land.

Suck it up.  Times change.  We don't get to own slaves anymore.  As a matter of fact, Black people (and even women!) can vote now.  Homosexuals are free to marry and raise families and children can divorce their parents.  

We register motor vehicles, regulate their use and license their operators all in the name of public safety.  That doesn't make all vehicles safe to operate or prevent anyone from driving without a license, but it does make our public thoroughfares much safer than the absence of these modest regulations. And none of it interferes with any good citizen owning and operating a motor vehicle.

I expect that there will come a day before too long when we'll regulate the acquisition and use of firearms with an equivalent eye to public safety.  I don't see how any special interest can prevent it.


----------



## oldsoul

Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.[/QUOTE]
No, it has not. How does it do that? If I, a law abiding citizen, were to obtain a gun, not register it, how would your registry get me off the streets? Answer, I would have to commit a crime, or have someone turn me in for failing to register. The law did nothing but make a criminal out of someone who is not otherwise a criminal. Maybe that is the point though.



Al Azar said:


> We get it. The Nazis did very bad things. Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?


Um, if you do not remember and LEARN from history, you are doomed to repeat it. So, what have you learned from the Nazi model? The Soviet model? Mao's model? See a pattern developing here? It keeps happening.



Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and yet criminals don't do any of those things...and 90% of gun murders are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns..........
> 
> Again....you refuse to say what gun registration actually does.......do you acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....via Haynes v. United States.....which means only normal people will be required to register their guns....how does that stop gun murder exactly?
> 
> and you can't register fully automatic rifles in France......yet they are easily gotten by French criminals.....and terrorists on government watch lists.........
> 
> 
> 
> Registration keeps people in possession of unregistered weapons off the streets.  This has been explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How?    There are felons right now...shooting people in Chicago with guns they cannot own or carry......who are not requir d to register those guns...and yet they are carrying them...right now...and shooting people with them....
> 
> How does registration physically stop anyone from carrying an unregistered gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how it could.  What an extraordinary question.
> 
> See post #10:  ... serious penalties for possession of firearm not registered the bearer...
Click to expand...

Finally, we agree on something. Registries cannot do what you say they WILL do.



Al Azar said:


> We were talking about criminals. Now you want to change your argument to a discussion of felons.


News flash, felons ARE criminals. I know it's developing news right now so I can't expect everyone to know about it yet. Just an FYI for you.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are in support of an end run around the COTUS. I guess I'm not surprised...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The court has modified its position on issues as we evolve as a society.  Remember the old days, when only human beings had personhood status, not corporations?
> 
> Things change as judicial wisdom changes.  Adapt, or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want me to agree with you or die. Seems legit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that if you were capable of reading what is written rather than what you wish were written, you'd have thrown in the towel long ago.
> 
> The fact is that we do exercise gun control in this country and the only argument is over his much is necessary.  We have differing opinions and the prevailing view will become the law of the land.
> 
> Suck it up.  Times change.  We don't get to own slaves anymore.  As a matter of fact, Black people (and even women!) can vote now.  Homosexuals are free to marry and raise families and children can divorce their parents.
> 
> We register motor vehicles, regulate their use and license their operators all in the name of public safety.  That doesn't make all vehicles safe to operate or prevent anyone from driving without a license, but it does make our public thoroughfares much safer than the absence of these modest regulations. And none of it interferes with any good citizen owning and operating a motor vehicle.
> 
> I expect that there will come a day before too long when we'll regulate the acquisition and use of firearms with an equivalent eye to public safety.  I don't see how any special interest can prevent it.
Click to expand...




Al Azar said:


> I think that if you were capable of reading what is written rather than what you wish were written, you'd have thrown in the towel long ago


Oh, right because you have presented overwhelming evidence that your position is the right one. Oh, wait, no, you have not presented ANY evidence aside from platitudes and antidotes.



Al Azar said:


> I expect that there will come a day before too long when we'll regulate the acquisition and use of firearms with an equivalent eye to public safety. I don't see how any special interest can prevent it.


I sincerely hope you are wrong. Our Republic WILL flounder and fail, just like every other society that has allowed tyranny to take hold.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
Click to expand...


We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of your comrades just admitted that, despite claims that the founding fathers wanted citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government, we don't need to worry about that anymore so it doesn't matter what they intended.  You two need to sort this out and then attempt to present a united argument, such as it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
Click to expand...


The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.


----------



## Crixus

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun ownership is a Right...driving or flying is not.......
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 2nd amendment and no where does it say high capacity mags are a right.
Click to expand...



doesn't really go in depth on the right to free speech either. They meant weapons equivalent to the government. had they had AR15's they would have meant those.


----------



## Crixus

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.[/QUOTE
> You would be surprised what isnt banned. Most stuff the military uses is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...


----------



## Crixus

alang1216 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....
> 
> 
> 
> Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons...  Is there no end?
Click to expand...




All those are legal to own.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> "... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context.  The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare".  It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
> How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
> More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.  Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.
Click to expand...


  Nope,not gonna happen no matter how much guns make piss run down your leg.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85287
> Good luck repealing that one...
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary.  Our court will clarify its purpose and meaning as it is applied to 21st century America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are in support of an end run around the COTUS. I guess I'm not surprised...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The court has modified its position on issues as we evolve as a society.  Remember the old days, when only human beings had personhood status, not corporations?
> 
> Things change as judicial wisdom changes.  Adapt, or die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want me to agree with you or die. Seems legit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that if you were capable of reading what is written rather than what you wish were written, you'd have thrown in the towel long ago.
> 
> The fact is that we do exercise gun control in this country and the only argument is over his much is necessary.  We have differing opinions and the prevailing view will become the law of the land.
> 
> Suck it up.  Times change.  We don't get to own slaves anymore.  As a matter of fact, Black people (and even women!) can vote now.  Homosexuals are free to marry and raise families and children can divorce their parents.
> 
> We register motor vehicles, regulate their use and license their operators all in the name of public safety.  That doesn't make all vehicles safe to operate or prevent anyone from driving without a license, but it does make our public thoroughfares much safer than the absence of these modest regulations. And none of it interferes with any good citizen owning and operating a motor vehicle.
> 
> I expect that there will come a day before too long when we'll regulate the acquisition and use of firearms with an equivalent eye to public safety.  I don't see how any special interest can prevent it.
Click to expand...



You have shown no reason to register guns......we have shown that registering guns is only needed to eventually ban or confiscate them....


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
Click to expand...



Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...it hasn't ....you said if you register guns it keeps unregistered guns off the street.....and provided no explanation as to how that happens.....
> 
> I say if you sprinkle pixie dust in the woods during a full moon it will keep guns off the streets....and that is as valid a method as registering guns.........
> 
> Again......do you acknowledge that criminals...felons do not have to register illegal guns under Haynes v. United States.....?
> 
> How does requiring law abiding gun owners to do paperwork keep criminals, who cannot legally own guns in the first place, from getting illegal guns....
> 
> I am calling you out....explain the mechanics of gun registration....how it physically stops a criminal or mass shooter from getting an illegal gun.........
> 
> 
> 
> If your going to quote me, don't respond to something altogether different.  I said registration keeps *people *in possession of unregistered firearms off the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How?    There are felons right now...shooting people in Chicago with guns they cannot own or carry......who are not requir d to register those guns...and yet they are carrying them...right now...and shooting people with them....
> 
> How does registration physically stop anyone from carrying an unregistered gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how it could.  What an extraordinary question.
> 
> See post #10:  ... serious penalties for possession of firearm not registered the bearer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again.......that doesn't answer my question.......we can already arrest criminals who have guns...they do not need to be registered to do that...we can do that right now.......
> 
> 
> If a normal gun owner decides to take his gun....even if it is registered like you want...and commit a crime.....we can arrest them...and registering the gun did not stop the crime or help to arrest the guy....he committed a crime with the gun...he can be arrested already...no need to register gums.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're switching to arrests?  No.
> 
> Despite what someone may be convicted of, if he was also in possession of an unregistered firearm he can be put away for much longer.  That's the point of registering firearms.
Click to expand...



Sorry......felons are already forbidden to own guns....all guns...registered or not......so adding an extra layer of paperwork....and a huge penalty for law abiding gun owners is not going to float......did you again fail to acknowledge that criminals do not have to register illegal guns.....do you understand that.....?  

So...the only people required to register guns would be law abiding people who don't use them to commit crimes......

you guys are such morons....


----------



## 2aguy

IsaacNewton said:


> I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.
> 
> What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.
> 
> As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.




Thank you ........this is why we don't trust you assholes....


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
Click to expand...



And the German's believed the exact same thing you are saying in the 1920s....when they happily registered their guns.......every single argument you guys are making was made back then...none of your arguments are new or original....they used every single one to get the German people to register their guns.........

20 years later they took those unarmed Germans and Europeans....and marched them into gas chambers.....


right now...unarmed Mexicans are being murdered in the 10s of thousands by their own police and military........the only ones who have the guns...which is another thing you guys push...........right across the border, every single day........


----------



## IsaacNewton

2aguy said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.
> 
> What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.
> 
> As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you ........this is why we don't trust you assholes....
Click to expand...


And you think you are trustworthy? You aren't a patriot or the 'defender' of anything. All this nonsense is just a bunch of mems you and your paranoid brethren pass around to each other. You aren't 'real americans', you don't know the Constitution better than anyone else, you don't have any more claim to any part of it than any other American. 
And it says right in the 2nd amendment 'well regulated'. That you want to twist the wording in any or all of the amendments doesn't mean you are right or even worth listening to. 

Sorry charlie.


----------



## 2aguy

IsaacNewton said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.
> 
> What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.
> 
> As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you ........this is why we don't trust you assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think you are trustworthy? You aren't a patriot or the 'defender' of anything. All this nonsense is just a bunch of mems you and your paranoid brethren pass around to each other. You aren't 'real americans', you don't know the Constitution better than anyone else, you don't have any more claim to any part of it than any other American.
> And it says right in the 2nd amendment 'well regulated'. That you want to twist the wording in any or all of the amendments doesn't mean you are right or even worth listening to.
> 
> Sorry charlie.
Click to expand...



The 2nd is written in ink...and you guys still can't read it....but abortion isn't in there and you see it as if it was written on stone...........

This is why we don't trust you..........and never will....


----------



## IsaacNewton

2aguy said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.
> 
> What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.
> 
> As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you ........this is why we don't trust you assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think you are trustworthy? You aren't a patriot or the 'defender' of anything. All this nonsense is just a bunch of mems you and your paranoid brethren pass around to each other. You aren't 'real americans', you don't know the Constitution better than anyone else, you don't have any more claim to any part of it than any other American.
> And it says right in the 2nd amendment 'well regulated'. That you want to twist the wording in any or all of the amendments doesn't mean you are right or even worth listening to.
> 
> Sorry charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd is written in ink...and you guys still can't read it....but abortion isn't in there and you see it as if it was written on stone...........
> 
> This is why we don't trust you..........and never will....
Click to expand...


You are lost bubba, there is no 'you' as in a group that YOU need to construct a tidy little box for. But your world needs to be black and white and complexity is far to 'complex' for you so stick to what ya know. Or rather don't know in this case.


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
Click to expand...

No other country has this right enshrined in the Constitution. Big difference.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No other country has this right enshrined in the Constitution. Big difference.
Click to expand...



And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.........and the NRA........


----------



## Skull Pilot

IsaacNewton said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.
> 
> What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.
> 
> As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you ........this is why we don't trust you assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think you are trustworthy? You aren't a patriot or the 'defender' of anything. All this nonsense is just a bunch of mems you and your paranoid brethren pass around to each other. You aren't 'real americans', you don't know the Constitution better than anyone else, you don't have any more claim to any part of it than any other American.
> And it says right in the 2nd amendment 'well regulated'. That you want to twist the wording in any or all of the amendments doesn't mean you are right or even worth listening to.
> 
> Sorry charlie.
Click to expand...


I don't know how many times you people have to be told but the term "well regulated" in the 18th century vernacular meant, disciplined or in good order not government controlled

In fact the militia was meant to be a control on placed on the government.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Skull Pilot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.
> 
> What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.
> 
> As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you ........this is why we don't trust you assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think you are trustworthy? You aren't a patriot or the 'defender' of anything. All this nonsense is just a bunch of mems you and your paranoid brethren pass around to each other. You aren't 'real americans', you don't know the Constitution better than anyone else, you don't have any more claim to any part of it than any other American.
> And it says right in the 2nd amendment 'well regulated'. That you want to twist the wording in any or all of the amendments doesn't mean you are right or even worth listening to.
> 
> Sorry charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times you people have to be told but the term "well regulated" in the 18th century vernacular meant, disciplined or in good order not government controlled
> 
> In fact the militia was meant to be a control on placed on the government.
Click to expand...


Right you are the expert. 

You twist it into whatever fits your world view. That's all.


----------



## Skull Pilot

IsaacNewton said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will allow you only lemon frosting on sponge cake for your birthdays. No vanilla cake, no vanilla or chocolate frosting. You can have fancy fringe frosting but no roses and no writing on your cake. It must look like a plain generic birthday cake you'd find at a supermarket bakery.
> 
> What do I want? I want every single human to never again bitch about a 'war on Christmas' and instead just enjoy the godd#$mn holiday and allow the rest of us to do the same. No bitching about cups, or nativity scenes or lack of nativity scenes or nativity scenes with halloween characters standing in for the wise men and the baby Jesus. And since we're here no whining about Halloween, the costumes, the fake 'it's satanic blah blah' nonsense, and just let children have a day where they can dress up and forget the adults exist.
> 
> As for guns, high powered rifles a 5 round clip maximum, no sale of weapons designed for military use sold to the public (you have a burning desire to use them join the Marines), extreme background checks and psych evaluations, a 90 day waiting period, and the gun owner forfeits his/her entire financial worth to anyone they wrongly point a gun at or anyone they shoot outside the law, in addition to the criminal charges. There are more but get started on that, I'll be eating delicious vanilla birthday cake with vanilla frosting and watching skeet shooting in RIO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you ........this is why we don't trust you assholes....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think you are trustworthy? You aren't a patriot or the 'defender' of anything. All this nonsense is just a bunch of mems you and your paranoid brethren pass around to each other. You aren't 'real americans', you don't know the Constitution better than anyone else, you don't have any more claim to any part of it than any other American.
> And it says right in the 2nd amendment 'well regulated'. That you want to twist the wording in any or all of the amendments doesn't mean you are right or even worth listening to.
> 
> Sorry charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times you people have to be told but the term "well regulated" in the 18th century vernacular meant, disciplined or in good order not government controlled
> 
> In fact the militia was meant to be a control on placed on the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right you are the expert.
> 
> You twist it into whatever fits your world view. That's all.
Click to expand...


Look up the phrase in the context in which it was used.

It's you who are using the phrase with the more modern connotation of government controlled


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.


 And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.

Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.  

Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.   

Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past? 

And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
Click to expand...



It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....

Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....

Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......

Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......

Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims

in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......

Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......

That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......

Must be nice living in your arm chair........


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
Click to expand...

 Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.

No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
Click to expand...



And this is why........

every year Americans use guns 1,500,000 times to stop violent criminal attack.....many times even mass shooters......that means lives saved....lives not raped, and beaten and murdered out of existence...........and there are people like you who will disarm those people.....and those lives in the future will be destroyed........

And then there is this......the murder of innocent people by their governments......which only happens to unarmed people.....

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military 
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges 
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing 
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
Click to expand...



Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......
Click to expand...

 The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago.  It's the lack of it next door.  Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago.  It's the lack of it next door.  Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?
Click to expand...



Wrong asswipe....the problem in Chicago is the fact that the gangs control many of the aldermen in the city......the aldermen vote down police resources and hiring......also, the prosecutors and judges do not sentence gun criminals to long sentences.....a felon in possession of an illegal gun should get 10 years.......they are letting these guys out on bail......where they then threaten and kill witnesses....and then if they get  a conviction...they sentence them to under 2 years.......

That is what is driving gun murder in Chicago....

Then, you add in democrat black lies murder.......and the Ferguson effect....Police stops are down over 90%...and the criminals know it....they know that the cops are not stopping them and checking them out...so they are free now to carry guns and shoot people.......

Guns are not the problem.....

Chicago has 3 million people.

New York has 8 million people.

They both have the exact same gun control laws.......and access to states that have less strict gun control laws......

Chicago has more gun murders than New York......it isn't the gun.....it used to be New York had stop and frisk...and longer jail time for gun criminals.....but with the new socialist mayor...who has attacked police and ended stop and frisk...their numbers are going up too.....


----------



## 2aguy

If you get past the anti gun crap from the anti gun journalist.......you actually get the real reason we have more gun crime in Chicago.......

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/18/us/chicago-murder-problem.html?_r=0

And Chicago is more lenient about illegal handguns than New York, prescribing a one-year minimum for possession versus three and a half years in New York. An attempt to match the New York law in 2013 was rejected by the Illinois legislature out of concern for skyrocketing incarceration rates for young black men.

New York also hired a lot more police officers in response to the crime of the 1990s, and, during its stop-and-frisk era of the 2000s, steeply increased gun enforcement. Recent studies, including one that looked at increased police presence in London after a terrorist attack, have suggested more police might mean less crime, said Jens Ludwig, the director of Crime Lab at the University of Chicago, which studies crime in both Chicago and New York.

Chicago’s Police Department, overwhelmed, can respond only to the most serious problems, leaving citizens to feel responsible for their own security, he said.

Chicago is down about 2,000 police officers..and that was a few years ago.....the need to hire at least 1,000 more cops.....but can't because they spent their money on ornamental fences and plants .......and they have 1,000 cops out on vacation and sick leave...........

Guns are not the problem......lack of police......prosecutors who do not charge for gun crimes even with repeat illegal gun violation arrests....and judges who do not sentence criminals to long sentences......


Chicago gangs are different as well....

Many of Chicago’s gangs have fractured, leading to more violence, said Arthur Lurigio, a criminology professor at Loyola University Chicago. While Latino gangs have remained more hierarchical, black gangs have splintered into small, disparate factions, whose disputes are less over territory and profits, and more over personal insults or shames, often fueled by social media, he said.

“Young people are making a lot of indirect threats toward cliques and rival gangs that are being interpreted as being threatening,” said Desmond Patton, a professor at Columbia University who has studied violence on social media. “Tagging is the conversation starter that could lead to someone getting a gun.”

In addition to making threats, individuals at times post their location on social media to prove to rivals that they’re tough, he said.

In one well-known instance, Gakirah Barnes, a Chicago gang member who was rumored to have killed or shot up to 20 rival gang members, referenced an address she frequented on Twitter. In the tweet, provided by Dr. Patton, Ms. Barnes says “Lz,” which has multiple meanings in Chicago gang cultures, including living life, at address number 6347. Later that day, she was shot and killed near the address.

And this.....

In Chicago, homicide rates correspond with segregation. While many areas have few or no killings, the South and West Sides are on par with the world’s most dangerous countries, like Brazil and Venezuela, and have been for many years.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago.  It's the lack of it next door.  Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong asswipe....the problem in Chicago is the fact that the gangs control many of the aldermen in the city......the aldermen vote down police resources and hiring......also, the prosecutors and judges do not sentence gun criminals to long sentences.....a felon in possession of an illegal gun should get 10 years.......they are letting these guys out on bail......where they then threaten and kill witnesses....and then if they get  a conviction...they sentence them to under 2 years.......
> 
> That is what is driving gun murder in Chicago....
> 
> Then, you add in democrat black lies murder.......and the Ferguson effect....Police stops are down over 90%...and the criminals know it....they know that the cops are not stopping them and checking them out...so they are free now to carry guns and shoot people.......
> 
> Guns are not the problem.....
> 
> Chicago has 3 million people.
> 
> New York has 8 million people.
> 
> They both have the exact same gun control laws.......and access to states that have less strict gun control laws......
> 
> Chicago has more gun murders than New York......it isn't the gun.....it used to be New York had stop and frisk...and longer jail time for gun criminals.....but with the new socialist mayor...who has attacked police and ended stop and frisk...their numbers are going up too.....
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's an enforcement problem.  Sorry, it sounded like you were blaming legislation.

Glad we're on the same page.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
> 
> 
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago.  It's the lack of it next door.  Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong asswipe....the problem in Chicago is the fact that the gangs control many of the aldermen in the city......the aldermen vote down police resources and hiring......also, the prosecutors and judges do not sentence gun criminals to long sentences.....a felon in possession of an illegal gun should get 10 years.......they are letting these guys out on bail......where they then threaten and kill witnesses....and then if they get  a conviction...they sentence them to under 2 years.......
> 
> That is what is driving gun murder in Chicago....
> 
> Then, you add in democrat black lies murder.......and the Ferguson effect....Police stops are down over 90%...and the criminals know it....they know that the cops are not stopping them and checking them out...so they are free now to carry guns and shoot people.......
> 
> Guns are not the problem.....
> 
> Chicago has 3 million people.
> 
> New York has 8 million people.
> 
> They both have the exact same gun control laws.......and access to states that have less strict gun control laws......
> 
> Chicago has more gun murders than New York......it isn't the gun.....it used to be New York had stop and frisk...and longer jail time for gun criminals.....but with the new socialist mayor...who has attacked police and ended stop and frisk...their numbers are going up too.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so it's an enforcement problem.  Sorry, it sounded like you were blaming legislation.
> 
> Glad we're on the same page.
Click to expand...



Of course you didn't understand that...........

It is not enforcing more paperwork and rules on normal, law abiding gun owners....they are not the ones shooting other people........so making more hoops and laws they need to follow doesn't effect the gun murder rate.....

Pay attention twit......

You have to arrest gun criminals...and put them in jail for a long time....and that is not happening at any level in the criminal justice system.....

--chicago is not prosecuting gun criminals....

--the cops are not making stops

--obama is not prosecuting gun criminals...gun crime prosecutions at the federal level, of actual criminals, is down almost 40%...

--obama is releasing gun criminals back onto the streets.........

That is the problem....not John Q. Citizen carrying a gun for self defense from the very people you are helping put back on the street.


----------



## Al Azar

2aguy said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago.  It's the lack of it next door.  Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong asswipe....the problem in Chicago is the fact that the gangs control many of the aldermen in the city......the aldermen vote down police resources and hiring......also, the prosecutors and judges do not sentence gun criminals to long sentences.....a felon in possession of an illegal gun should get 10 years.......they are letting these guys out on bail......where they then threaten and kill witnesses....and then if they get  a conviction...they sentence them to under 2 years.......
> 
> That is what is driving gun murder in Chicago....
> 
> Then, you add in democrat black lies murder.......and the Ferguson effect....Police stops are down over 90%...and the criminals know it....they know that the cops are not stopping them and checking them out...so they are free now to carry guns and shoot people.......
> 
> Guns are not the problem.....
> 
> Chicago has 3 million people.
> 
> New York has 8 million people.
> 
> They both have the exact same gun control laws.......and access to states that have less strict gun control laws......
> 
> Chicago has more gun murders than New York......it isn't the gun.....it used to be New York had stop and frisk...and longer jail time for gun criminals.....but with the new socialist mayor...who has attacked police and ended stop and frisk...their numbers are going up too.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so it's an enforcement problem.  Sorry, it sounded like you were blaming legislation.
> 
> Glad we're on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you didn't understand that...........
> 
> It is not enforcing more paperwork and rules on normal, law abiding gun owners....they are not the ones shooting other people........so making more hoops and laws they need to follow doesn't effect the gun murder rate.....
> 
> Pay attention twit......
> 
> You have to arrest gun criminals...and put them in jail for a long time....and that is not happening at any level in the criminal justice system.....
> 
> --chicago is not prosecuting gun criminals....
> 
> --the cops are not making stops
> 
> --obama is not prosecuting gun criminals...gun crime prosecutions at the federal level, of actual criminals, is down almost 40%...
> 
> --obama is releasing gun criminals back onto the streets.........
> 
> That is the problem....not John Q. Citizen carrying a gun for self defense from the very people you are helping put back on the street.
Click to expand...

 Your schoolyard name-calling really diminishes whatever point you're peddling.


----------



## 2aguy

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
Click to expand...



And here....this woman followed all of your rules......she had committed no crime, there was no reason she shouldn't have had a gun on her hip.........except and asshole like you was in charge of the process of her getting a permit......and she was stabbed to death while a guy like you played games......

New Jersey Woman Stabbed to Death by Ex While Waiting for Gun Permit

A New Jersey woman was murdered by her ex-boyfriend on Wednesday as she waited for approval from the state to buy a handgun. In addition to obtaining a restraining order against her ex, Michael Eitel, and installing security cameras in her home, Carol Bowne had applied for a permit to purchase a handgun on April 21.

Police told the (New Jersey) _Courier-Post_ that she had inquired about the application as recently as Monday. “We did not get the fingerprint information yet,” Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check told the paper.

Unlike most states, New Jersey’s restrictive gun laws require a permit to purchase a handgun. The permit process can take several months to complete. Bowne’s murder has left her friends and neighbors in shock.

* “She did absolutely everything she was supposed to,”* her coworker Denise Lovallo told the paper. “Do they have enough now to get him?”


----------



## Skull Pilot

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
Click to expand...


So tell me how is telling me I can't own an AR 15 making anyone safer?
How does limiting the size of magazines that I can buy making anyone else safer?

Let me help you

Neither one makes anyone safer than they already are


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the German's believed the exact same thing you are saying in the 1920s....when they happily registered their guns.......every single argument you guys are making was made back then...none of your arguments are new or original....they used every single one to get the German people to register their guns.........
> 
> 20 years later they took those unarmed Germans and Europeans....and marched them into gas chambers.....
> 
> 
> right now...unarmed Mexicans are being murdered in the 10s of thousands by their own police and military........the only ones who have the guns...which is another thing you guys push...........right across the border, every single day........
Click to expand...



I think comparing the US to Germany, in this respect - is grossly inaccurate.  And the main reason is OUR constitution, which is quite different that that of any other nation.

Was the right to bear arms enshrined in the German constitution?

How easily can the German constitution be amended, compared to ours, which has so many checks and balances (thank goodness) that it is exceedingly difficult to amend?


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
Click to expand...


The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.

I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No other country has this right enshrined in the Constitution. Big difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.........and the NRA........
Click to expand...


Exactly.  And the NRA protects that right.  But it also goes too far.  NO RIGHT IS UNLIMITED.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the German's believed the exact same thing you are saying in the 1920s....when they happily registered their guns.......every single argument you guys are making was made back then...none of your arguments are new or original....they used every single one to get the German people to register their guns.........
> 
> 20 years later they took those unarmed Germans and Europeans....and marched them into gas chambers.....
> 
> 
> right now...unarmed Mexicans are being murdered in the 10s of thousands by their own police and military........the only ones who have the guns...which is another thing you guys push...........right across the border, every single day........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think comparing the US to Germany, in this respect - is grossly inaccurate.  And the main reason is OUR constitution, which is quite different that that of any other nation.
> 
> Was the right to bear arms enshrined in the German constitution?
> 
> How easily can the German constitution be amended, compared to ours, which has so many checks and balances (thank goodness) that it is exceedingly difficult to amend?
Click to expand...

_No, it can't be amended easily, but FDR and Obama have outright ignored the Constitution, and it has been shown that the Supreme Court 'justices' aren't interpreting the Constitution anymore, just ruling in favor of whatever suits their agendas. For example, Obama has violated the Constitution 64 times under their watch. Expecting the government to protect our rights is outright silly, they don't care. Just like any dictatorship, rights can be taken away, it just hasn't been as easy until the Establishment was able to appoint judges that won't protect our rights._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
Click to expand...

_Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
Click to expand...


Why are they unreasonable?

You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
You can not libel or slander.
You can not incite a crowd to violence.
You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.

All of those are restrictions on basic rights?

How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the German's believed the exact same thing you are saying in the 1920s....when they happily registered their guns.......every single argument you guys are making was made back then...none of your arguments are new or original....they used every single one to get the German people to register their guns.........
> 
> 20 years later they took those unarmed Germans and Europeans....and marched them into gas chambers.....
> 
> 
> right now...unarmed Mexicans are being murdered in the 10s of thousands by their own police and military........the only ones who have the guns...which is another thing you guys push...........right across the border, every single day........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think comparing the US to Germany, in this respect - is grossly inaccurate.  And the main reason is OUR constitution, which is quite different that that of any other nation.
> 
> Was the right to bear arms enshrined in the German constitution?
> 
> How easily can the German constitution be amended, compared to ours, which has so many checks and balances (thank goodness) that it is exceedingly difficult to amend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, it can't be amended easily, but FDR and Obama have outright ignored the Constitution, and it has been shown that the Supreme Court 'justices' aren't interpreting the Constitution anymore, just ruling in favor of whatever suits their agendas. For example, Obama has violated the Constitution 64 times under their watch. Expecting the government to protect our rights is outright silly, they don't care. Just like any dictatorship, rights can be taken away, it just hasn't been as easy until the Establishment was able to appoint judges that won't protect our rights._
Click to expand...


64 times according to WHO?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
Click to expand...

_Conducting human sacrifices in the name of religion is murder. The difference here is that people have a right to believe what they want, but not a right to practice that belief how they want. That's not a restriction on a right, that's ensuring that people can't break the law under religious pretenses. _

_Those are not restrictions on basic rights, they are preventing infringement on the rights of others. _

_Banning certain weapon types ensures that a potential criminal has access to those weapons, but a citizen does not. _

_If the government becomes too oppressive, yes, you need a rocket launcher(And more) to defend yourself._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the German's believed the exact same thing you are saying in the 1920s....when they happily registered their guns.......every single argument you guys are making was made back then...none of your arguments are new or original....they used every single one to get the German people to register their guns.........
> 
> 20 years later they took those unarmed Germans and Europeans....and marched them into gas chambers.....
> 
> 
> right now...unarmed Mexicans are being murdered in the 10s of thousands by their own police and military........the only ones who have the guns...which is another thing you guys push...........right across the border, every single day........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think comparing the US to Germany, in this respect - is grossly inaccurate.  And the main reason is OUR constitution, which is quite different that that of any other nation.
> 
> Was the right to bear arms enshrined in the German constitution?
> 
> How easily can the German constitution be amended, compared to ours, which has so many checks and balances (thank goodness) that it is exceedingly difficult to amend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, it can't be amended easily, but FDR and Obama have outright ignored the Constitution, and it has been shown that the Supreme Court 'justices' aren't interpreting the Constitution anymore, just ruling in favor of whatever suits their agendas. For example, Obama has violated the Constitution 64 times under their watch. Expecting the government to protect our rights is outright silly, they don't care. Just like any dictatorship, rights can be taken away, it just hasn't been as easy until the Establishment was able to appoint judges that won't protect our rights._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 64 times according to WHO?
Click to expand...

_According to myself, and anyone else who has bothered to check._


_Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
_In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
_Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law.  Article II Section 3_
_Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined.  – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
_Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2_
_Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment._
_Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4_
_Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3_
_Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
_Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress,  and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath._
_Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2_
_Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated._
_23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment_
_Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3_
_2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law._
_Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
_Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t_

_errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._
_Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
_Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3_
_Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
_Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
_Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
_Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
_Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment_
_Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress._
_Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so._
_NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments._
_Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything_
_Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI._
_Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress_
_Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment_
_DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
_Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1_
_Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated_
_Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade_
_Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment_
_Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)_
_Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9._
_ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8._
_Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment_
_Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers_
_Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare_
_Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment._
_Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)_
_The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1._
_Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3._
_Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers._
_Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional._
_Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4._
_With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment._
_Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment._
_The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives_
_Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment._
_Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
_Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
_Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
_Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
_Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3_
_Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3._
_Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
_Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
_Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
_Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
_In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
_Satisfied?_

_Edit: Source: A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations_


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the German's believed the exact same thing you are saying in the 1920s....when they happily registered their guns.......every single argument you guys are making was made back then...none of your arguments are new or original....they used every single one to get the German people to register their guns.........
> 
> 20 years later they took those unarmed Germans and Europeans....and marched them into gas chambers.....
> 
> 
> right now...unarmed Mexicans are being murdered in the 10s of thousands by their own police and military........the only ones who have the guns...which is another thing you guys push...........right across the border, every single day........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think comparing the US to Germany, in this respect - is grossly inaccurate.  And the main reason is OUR constitution, which is quite different that that of any other nation.
> 
> Was the right to bear arms enshrined in the German constitution?
> 
> How easily can the German constitution be amended, compared to ours, which has so many checks and balances (thank goodness) that it is exceedingly difficult to amend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, it can't be amended easily, but FDR and Obama have outright ignored the Constitution, and it has been shown that the Supreme Court 'justices' aren't interpreting the Constitution anymore, just ruling in favor of whatever suits their agendas. For example, Obama has violated the Constitution 64 times under their watch. Expecting the government to protect our rights is outright silly, they don't care. Just like any dictatorship, rights can be taken away, it just hasn't been as easy until the Establishment was able to appoint judges that won't protect our rights._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 64 times according to WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _According to myself, and anyone else who has bothered to check._
> 
> 
> _Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law.  Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined.  – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2_
> _Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment._
> _Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4_
> _Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress,  and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath._
> _Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2_
> _Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated._
> _23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment_
> _Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3_
> _2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law._
> _Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t_
> 
> _errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._
> _Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3_
> _Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment_
> _Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress._
> _Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so._
> _NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments._
> _Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything_
> _Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI._
> _Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress_
> _Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment_
> _DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1_
> _Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated_
> _Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade_
> _Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment_
> _Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)_
> _Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9._
> _ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8._
> _Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment_
> _Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers_
> _Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare_
> _Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment._
> _Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)_
> _The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1._
> _Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3._
> _Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers._
> _Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional._
> _Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4._
> _With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment._
> _Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment._
> _The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives_
> _Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment._
> _Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3_
> _Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3._
> _Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Satisfied?_
Click to expand...


No.  What's the source?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the German's believed the exact same thing you are saying in the 1920s....when they happily registered their guns.......every single argument you guys are making was made back then...none of your arguments are new or original....they used every single one to get the German people to register their guns.........
> 
> 20 years later they took those unarmed Germans and Europeans....and marched them into gas chambers.....
> 
> 
> right now...unarmed Mexicans are being murdered in the 10s of thousands by their own police and military........the only ones who have the guns...which is another thing you guys push...........right across the border, every single day........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think comparing the US to Germany, in this respect - is grossly inaccurate.  And the main reason is OUR constitution, which is quite different that that of any other nation.
> 
> Was the right to bear arms enshrined in the German constitution?
> 
> How easily can the German constitution be amended, compared to ours, which has so many checks and balances (thank goodness) that it is exceedingly difficult to amend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No, it can't be amended easily, but FDR and Obama have outright ignored the Constitution, and it has been shown that the Supreme Court 'justices' aren't interpreting the Constitution anymore, just ruling in favor of whatever suits their agendas. For example, Obama has violated the Constitution 64 times under their watch. Expecting the government to protect our rights is outright silly, they don't care. Just like any dictatorship, rights can be taken away, it just hasn't been as easy until the Establishment was able to appoint judges that won't protect our rights._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 64 times according to WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _According to myself, and anyone else who has bothered to check._
> 
> 
> _Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law.  Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined.  – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2_
> _Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment._
> _Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4_
> _Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress,  and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath._
> _Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2_
> _Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated._
> _23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment_
> _Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3_
> _2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law._
> _Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t_
> 
> _errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._
> _Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3_
> _Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment_
> _Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress._
> _Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so._
> _NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments._
> _Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything_
> _Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI._
> _Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress_
> _Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment_
> _DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1_
> _Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated_
> _Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade_
> _Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment_
> _Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)_
> _Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9._
> _ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8._
> _Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment_
> _Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers_
> _Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare_
> _Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment._
> _Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)_
> _The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1._
> _Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3._
> _Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers._
> _Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional._
> _Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4._
> _With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment._
> _Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment._
> _The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives_
> _Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment._
> _Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3_
> _Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3._
> _Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Satisfied?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What's the source?
Click to expand...

_The source of the violations is Obama himself. The information showing he has violated the Constitution is the Constitution itself, and his policies that have infringed on it. All of his policies that have infringed on the Constitution have been announced, or the information has been released. You can look up each policy and each article if you like, to verify._


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think comparing the US to Germany, in this respect - is grossly inaccurate.  And the main reason is OUR constitution, which is quite different that that of any other nation.
> 
> Was the right to bear arms enshrined in the German constitution?
> 
> How easily can the German constitution be amended, compared to ours, which has so many checks and balances (thank goodness) that it is exceedingly difficult to amend?
> 
> 
> 
> _No, it can't be amended easily, but FDR and Obama have outright ignored the Constitution, and it has been shown that the Supreme Court 'justices' aren't interpreting the Constitution anymore, just ruling in favor of whatever suits their agendas. For example, Obama has violated the Constitution 64 times under their watch. Expecting the government to protect our rights is outright silly, they don't care. Just like any dictatorship, rights can be taken away, it just hasn't been as easy until the Establishment was able to appoint judges that won't protect our rights._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 64 times according to WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _According to myself, and anyone else who has bothered to check._
> 
> 
> _Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law.  Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined.  – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2_
> _Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment._
> _Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4_
> _Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress,  and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath._
> _Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2_
> _Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated._
> _23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment_
> _Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3_
> _2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law._
> _Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t_
> 
> _errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._
> _Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3_
> _Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment_
> _Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress._
> _Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so._
> _NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments._
> _Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything_
> _Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI._
> _Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress_
> _Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment_
> _DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1_
> _Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated_
> _Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade_
> _Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment_
> _Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)_
> _Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9._
> _ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8._
> _Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment_
> _Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers_
> _Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare_
> _Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment._
> _Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)_
> _The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1._
> _Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3._
> _Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers._
> _Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional._
> _Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4._
> _With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment._
> _Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment._
> _The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives_
> _Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment._
> _Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3_
> _Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3._
> _Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Satisfied?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What's the source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The source of the violations is Obama himself. The information showing he has violated the Constitution is the Constitution itself, and his policies that have infringed on it. All of his policies that have infringed on the Constitution have been announced, or the information has been released. You can look up each policy and each article if you like, to verify._
Click to expand...


Where did you copy the list from?


----------



## Coyote

Actually, I found the source:  A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations

It pretty much seems to be one bloggers OPINION.  What are his credentials?  What makes him a Constitutional expert?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _No, it can't be amended easily, but FDR and Obama have outright ignored the Constitution, and it has been shown that the Supreme Court 'justices' aren't interpreting the Constitution anymore, just ruling in favor of whatever suits their agendas. For example, Obama has violated the Constitution 64 times under their watch. Expecting the government to protect our rights is outright silly, they don't care. Just like any dictatorship, rights can be taken away, it just hasn't been as easy until the Establishment was able to appoint judges that won't protect our rights._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 64 times according to WHO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _According to myself, and anyone else who has bothered to check._
> 
> 
> _Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law.  Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined.  – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2_
> _Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment._
> _Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4_
> _Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress,  and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath._
> _Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2_
> _Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated._
> _23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment_
> _Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3_
> _2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law._
> _Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t_
> 
> _errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._
> _Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3_
> _Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment_
> _Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress._
> _Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so._
> _NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments._
> _Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything_
> _Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI._
> _Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress_
> _Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment_
> _DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1_
> _Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated_
> _Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade_
> _Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment_
> _Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)_
> _Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9._
> _ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8._
> _Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment_
> _Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers_
> _Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare_
> _Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment._
> _Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)_
> _The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1._
> _Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3._
> _Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers._
> _Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional._
> _Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4._
> _With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment._
> _Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment._
> _The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives_
> _Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment._
> _Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3_
> _Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3._
> _Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Satisfied?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What's the source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The source of the violations is Obama himself. The information showing he has violated the Constitution is the Constitution itself, and his policies that have infringed on it. All of his policies that have infringed on the Constitution have been announced, or the information has been released. You can look up each policy and each article if you like, to verify._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you copy the list from?
Click to expand...

_My notepad document. Are you asking for a source so you can complain? I find that's a common tactic for Liberals. If you're going to complain, you can complain about the information I listed. Since you can't because it's all factual, why don't you just admit the Supreme Court doesn't care?_


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Actually, I found the source:  A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations
> 
> It pretty much seems to be one bloggers OPINION.  What are his credentials?  What makes him a Constitutional expert?


_I like how I posted what you were going to do right when you did it. Why don't you refute the information instead of the "credentials" or "source"? Because you can't._


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 64 times according to WHO?
> 
> 
> 
> _According to myself, and anyone else who has bothered to check._
> 
> 
> _Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law.  Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined.  – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2_
> _Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment._
> _Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4_
> _Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress,  and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath._
> _Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2_
> _Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated._
> _23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment_
> _Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3_
> _2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law._
> _Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t_
> 
> _errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._
> _Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3_
> _Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment_
> _Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress._
> _Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so._
> _NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments._
> _Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything_
> _Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI._
> _Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress_
> _Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment_
> _DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1_
> _Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated_
> _Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade_
> _Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment_
> _Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)_
> _Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9._
> _ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8._
> _Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment_
> _Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers_
> _Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare_
> _Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment._
> _Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)_
> _The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1._
> _Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3._
> _Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers._
> _Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional._
> _Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4._
> _With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment._
> _Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment._
> _The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives_
> _Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment._
> _Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3_
> _Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3._
> _Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Satisfied?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What's the source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The source of the violations is Obama himself. The information showing he has violated the Constitution is the Constitution itself, and his policies that have infringed on it. All of his policies that have infringed on the Constitution have been announced, or the information has been released. You can look up each policy and each article if you like, to verify._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you copy the list from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _My notepad document. Are you asking for a source so you can complain? I find that's a common tactic for Liberals. If you're going to complain, you can complain about the information I listed. Since you can't because it's all factual, why don't you just admit the Supreme Court doesn't care?_
Click to expand...


Sources matter.  There are reputable sources and disreputable sources.  When you cut and paste with out citing a source, it's known as plagiarism.  That's not a "liberal tactic".  I'm no constitutional expert.  Neither are you if you depend entirely on a blogger of unknown credentials to inform you.  I'd rather hear it from someone who is indeed a constitutional authority, not a self-proclaimed one.  Being "liberal" has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I found the source:  A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations
> 
> It pretty much seems to be one bloggers OPINION.  What are his credentials?  What makes him a Constitutional expert?
> 
> 
> 
> _I like how I posted what you were going to do right when you did it. Why don't you refute the information instead of the "credentials" or "source"? Because you can't._
Click to expand...


Why do you plagiarize?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _According to myself, and anyone else who has bothered to check._
> 
> 
> _Used Executive Action in direct opposition to the law, and unilaterally changes the law for at least five million illegal aliens; Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange.  Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Complicit in receiving official emails from Secretary of State exclusively via personal email address – a violation of Federal Law.  Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined.  – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2_
> _Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment._
> _Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4_
> _Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3_
> _Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress,  and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath._
> _Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2_
> _Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated._
> _23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment_
> _Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3_
> _2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law._
> _Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to t_
> 
> _errorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8  Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization._
> _Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3_
> _Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8_
> _Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment_
> _Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress._
> _Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so._
> _NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.  Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments._
> _Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything_
> _Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI._
> _Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress_
> _Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment_
> _DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3_
> _Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1_
> _Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated_
> _Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade_
> _Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment_
> _Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)_
> _Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9._
> _ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8._
> _Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment_
> _Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers_
> _Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare_
> _Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment._
> _Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)_
> _The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1._
> _Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3._
> _Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers._
> _Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional._
> _Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson  and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4._
> _With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment._
> _Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment._
> _The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives_
> _Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3;  Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment._
> _Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3_
> _Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3._
> _Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50-100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3._
> _In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers._
> _Satisfied?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What's the source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The source of the violations is Obama himself. The information showing he has violated the Constitution is the Constitution itself, and his policies that have infringed on it. All of his policies that have infringed on the Constitution have been announced, or the information has been released. You can look up each policy and each article if you like, to verify._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you copy the list from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _My notepad document. Are you asking for a source so you can complain? I find that's a common tactic for Liberals. If you're going to complain, you can complain about the information I listed. Since you can't because it's all factual, why don't you just admit the Supreme Court doesn't care?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sources matter.  There are reputable sources and disreputable sources.  When you cut and paste with out citing a source, it's known as plagiarism.  That's not a "liberal tactic".  I'm no constitutional expert.  Neither are you if you depend entirely on a blogger of unknown credentials to inform you.  I'd rather hear it from someone who is indeed a constitutional authority, not a self-proclaimed one.  Being "liberal" has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

_So, what you're saying is you can't refute the information, so you're going to complain about the source. I already said that._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I found the source:  A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations
> 
> It pretty much seems to be one bloggers OPINION.  What are his credentials?  What makes him a Constitutional expert?
> 
> 
> 
> _I like how I posted what you were going to do right when you did it. Why don't you refute the information instead of the "credentials" or "source"? Because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you plagiarize?
Click to expand...

_Sounds like you've been backed into a corner, so you're going to deflect and derail. I'll edit the link into my post._


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I found the source:  A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations
> 
> It pretty much seems to be one bloggers OPINION.  What are his credentials?  What makes him a Constitutional expert?
> 
> 
> 
> _I like how I posted what you were going to do right when you did it. Why don't you refute the information instead of the "credentials" or "source"? Because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you plagiarize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Sounds like you've been backed into a corner, so you're going to deflect and derail. I'll edit the link into my post._
Click to expand...


Not at all.

I asked quite simply, what the source for the claims you made was.  You deflected.  Now, you've been pushed into a corner, so you will edit it.  That's fine.

Sources matter.  For example, I am not going to take anything from Storm Front seriously when it comes to claims against Jews. 

Anyone can claim ANYTHING.


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What's the source?
> 
> 
> 
> _The source of the violations is Obama himself. The information showing he has violated the Constitution is the Constitution itself, and his policies that have infringed on it. All of his policies that have infringed on the Constitution have been announced, or the information has been released. You can look up each policy and each article if you like, to verify._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you copy the list from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _My notepad document. Are you asking for a source so you can complain? I find that's a common tactic for Liberals. If you're going to complain, you can complain about the information I listed. Since you can't because it's all factual, why don't you just admit the Supreme Court doesn't care?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sources matter.  There are reputable sources and disreputable sources.  When you cut and paste with out citing a source, it's known as plagiarism.  That's not a "liberal tactic".  I'm no constitutional expert.  Neither are you if you depend entirely on a blogger of unknown credentials to inform you.  I'd rather hear it from someone who is indeed a constitutional authority, not a self-proclaimed one.  Being "liberal" has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, what you're saying is you can't refute the information, so you're going to complain about the source. I already said that._
Click to expand...


I'm not going to bother to refute a long list of stuff that comes from someone with seemingly no constitutional credentials. Now, if you can show me he or she does have credentials...then that is different.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I found the source:  A List of Obama’s Constitutional Violations
> 
> It pretty much seems to be one bloggers OPINION.  What are his credentials?  What makes him a Constitutional expert?
> 
> 
> 
> _I like how I posted what you were going to do right when you did it. Why don't you refute the information instead of the "credentials" or "source"? Because you can't._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you plagiarize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Sounds like you've been backed into a corner, so you're going to deflect and derail. I'll edit the link into my post._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> I asked quite simply, what the source for the claims you made was.  You deflected.  Now, you've been pushed into a corner, so you will edit it.  That's fine.
> 
> Sources matter.  For example, I am not going to take anything from Storm Front seriously when it comes to claims against Jews.
> 
> Anyone can claim ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

_If your problem with with the credentials of the poster rather than the information contained in the post, you have your priorities backwards. Refute any single one of the listed parts of the post instead of whining about the source. If he's not fit to make the claim, then any part of the material should be easy to refute._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The source of the violations is Obama himself. The information showing he has violated the Constitution is the Constitution itself, and his policies that have infringed on it. All of his policies that have infringed on the Constitution have been announced, or the information has been released. You can look up each policy and each article if you like, to verify._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you copy the list from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _My notepad document. Are you asking for a source so you can complain? I find that's a common tactic for Liberals. If you're going to complain, you can complain about the information I listed. Since you can't because it's all factual, why don't you just admit the Supreme Court doesn't care?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sources matter.  There are reputable sources and disreputable sources.  When you cut and paste with out citing a source, it's known as plagiarism.  That's not a "liberal tactic".  I'm no constitutional expert.  Neither are you if you depend entirely on a blogger of unknown credentials to inform you.  I'd rather hear it from someone who is indeed a constitutional authority, not a self-proclaimed one.  Being "liberal" has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, what you're saying is you can't refute the information, so you're going to complain about the source. I already said that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bother to refute a long list of stuff that comes from someone with seemingly no constitutional credentials. Now, if you can show me he or she does have credentials...then that is different.
Click to expand...

_In other words "I can't". I'd say I'm disappointed, but my expectations for you were low as it was._


----------



## Coyote

Pumpkin Row said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you copy the list from?
> 
> 
> 
> _My notepad document. Are you asking for a source so you can complain? I find that's a common tactic for Liberals. If you're going to complain, you can complain about the information I listed. Since you can't because it's all factual, why don't you just admit the Supreme Court doesn't care?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sources matter.  There are reputable sources and disreputable sources.  When you cut and paste with out citing a source, it's known as plagiarism.  That's not a "liberal tactic".  I'm no constitutional expert.  Neither are you if you depend entirely on a blogger of unknown credentials to inform you.  I'd rather hear it from someone who is indeed a constitutional authority, not a self-proclaimed one.  Being "liberal" has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, what you're saying is you can't refute the information, so you're going to complain about the source. I already said that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bother to refute a long list of stuff that comes from someone with seemingly no constitutional credentials. Now, if you can show me he or she does have credentials...then that is different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _In other words "I can't". I'd say I'm disappointed, but my expectations for you were low as it was._
Click to expand...



I could simply claim it's all hogwash and leave it at that.  After all, my "credentials" are the same as his....so, you should believe me right?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _My notepad document. Are you asking for a source so you can complain? I find that's a common tactic for Liberals. If you're going to complain, you can complain about the information I listed. Since you can't because it's all factual, why don't you just admit the Supreme Court doesn't care?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sources matter.  There are reputable sources and disreputable sources.  When you cut and paste with out citing a source, it's known as plagiarism.  That's not a "liberal tactic".  I'm no constitutional expert.  Neither are you if you depend entirely on a blogger of unknown credentials to inform you.  I'd rather hear it from someone who is indeed a constitutional authority, not a self-proclaimed one.  Being "liberal" has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So, what you're saying is you can't refute the information, so you're going to complain about the source. I already said that._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bother to refute a long list of stuff that comes from someone with seemingly no constitutional credentials. Now, if you can show me he or she does have credentials...then that is different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _In other words "I can't". I'd say I'm disappointed, but my expectations for you were low as it was._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I could simply claim it's all hogwash and leave it at that.  After all, my "credentials" are the same as his....so, you should believe me right?
Click to expand...

_Unlike you, there are a list of sources within the Constitution that show exactly which part was violated and how. As I said, you can choose and research any single part in order to refute it. You choose not to because you can't. I'll give you one more chance; Choose a part and refute it with an explanation, or admit that you can't deny it._


----------



## squeeze berry

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
Click to expand...



what are " reasonable restrictions" ?


----------



## squeeze berry

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?
> 
> Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable.  Here's what I'd consider fair
> 
> 1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
> 2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
> 3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
> 4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.
> 
> By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge).  Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
Click to expand...



1. sorry, it's a right.
2. what if your ex spouse is pissed cuz you found a younger chick, your neighbor hates your cats etc
3. does that include a brown bess repro
4. cuz I want one
5. some old joe blow


----------



## squeeze berry

Al Azar said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you get in trouble, you can always call a cop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
Click to expand...


how do they block efforts?


----------



## squeeze berry

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, the good old days when calling a cop was sufficient.  Back when a juvenile delinquent who wanted to be a tough guy had to fabricate his compensator out of a car antenna shaft, rubber band and a nail.  Today he just goes to the corner of the playground and buys a Glock.
> 
> Thanks, NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


in fact if we have certain demographic challenges that European countries do not. Remove that problem and our crime rate might be similar to western European countries


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

squeeze berry said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA is selling guns at playgrounds?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll indulge your wisecrack this one time.  The lobbying efforts of the NRA is responsible for arms proliferation in this country and their ready availability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like wisecracks, you might as well put me on ignore now, I use a lot of them.
> 
> Where did you get the impression that the NRA is behind the proliferation of firearms in this country?
> 
> What do they promote, in your opinion, that causes this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're serious?  The NRA blocks every effort to keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk individuals.  The more guns they can put in anyone's hands, the more everyone else feels they need protection from everyone else.
> 
> What a racket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,the racket is liberals and their soft on crime approach because it happens to be minorities doing most of the killing.
> The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in fact if we have certain demographic challenges that European countries do not. Remove that problem and our crime rate might be similar to western European countries
Click to expand...


  Hell,it'd be lower.


----------



## oldsoul

Al Azar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the only reason we still have the ability to own guns.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago.  It's the lack of it next door.  Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?
Click to expand...

Using that very same logic, Minnesota (being surrounded by states with less gun control) should be a venerable cesspool of gun violence, and yet....
Tallying gun deaths: one Minnesotan killed every day by firearms
Of course if one where to merely look at the headline, one might conclude this proves my assertion incorrect. However, if one were to actually read the above linked story, one would find:
"One reason the numbers may surprise many Minnesotans is that most of the deaths were not covered by news media or otherwise publicly reported because they were suicides. Indeed, suicides outnumbered all other causes of gun-related deaths. Between 2000 and 2010, guns were used to commit an average 256 suicides each year in Minnesota compared with 70 homicides per year." And:
"Still, Minnesota is nowhere near leading the nation in gun violence. The state ranked 31st in an FBI tally of the sheer numbers of firearm-related murders during 2011. Among 70 homicides in Minnesota that year, handguns were the most common weapon, used 36 times." Interesting, as most gun-control seems to be geared at "assault weapons", and "assault style weapons". Maybe the hand gun thing is unique to Minnesota.
Table 20
Oops, guess not, according to the FBI at least.
From the Star Tribune, not exactly a bastion of conservative ideology:
As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check

Notice how the highest bracket is not represented in the Minneapolis Metro area, the area with the highest crime rates. Interesting...


"Opponents had feared that the law would lead to a surge in shootings and gun deaths. But Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension data show that fatalities involving permit holders are rare.* In the past five years, there have been five deadly or nonlethal instances of justifiable use of a firearm by permit holders."* As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check
Kinda blows a "small" hole in the whole "wild west" theory, doesn't it? Only one permit holder involved per year. Wow, what a bunch of gun waving lunatics.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
Click to expand...

Well, using that logic, let's reinstitute "restrictions" on voting, free speech, jury of peers, etc. Why is it that the 2nd is the only amendment people want to "restrict"? Why are there no calls for restrictions on any other right?


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
Click to expand...

I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to worry about our government....just ask the Germans...they registered their guns using the same dumb ass arguments you are using right now....the exact same arguments.....when they trusted their government, and expected it to protect them.....20 years later....their government sent 12 million Europeans to the gas chambers....unarmed Europeans....
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
Click to expand...

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.


----------



## Coyote

squeeze berry said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what are " reasonable restrictions" ?
Click to expand...



In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines.  I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.


----------



## 2aguy

oldsoul said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's not going to change.  The only way to lose that ability is to seriously break the law, the same way you lose the ability to vote.
> 
> Just about every activity we engage in and every product we use is regulated.  Has that led to prohibition or confiscation?  Obviously not.  Regulation maintains product and consumer safety.
> 
> Yet, in your mind, you equate regulation of firearms with some sort of barrier to you, a law-abiding citizen, to continue to enjoy ownership and use.
> 
> Why?  What in the world is so special about this particular tool that so consumes you?  What is it that makes you think that this particular item, this particular activity, is subject to extreme measures unlike anything we've ever experienced in the past?
> 
> And please express what you think with something more substantial than regurgitating your pathetic fear of "gun-grabbers".  Give us some examples of our past regulatory behavior relevant to this issue.  What other product or activity have we ever first regulated, then prohibited?  And how was this product or activity equivalent to the constitutionally-protected bearing of arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the only tool that keeps genocide, mass murder an ethnic cleansing from happening.....it is the tool that let's a woman fight off 1 or more armed attackers......it allows the old to protect themselves from the younger, stronger violent criminals.....
> 
> Guns are different from cars, and any thing else that is registered to the government......those who want to control other people have to get rid of guns.....the Germans did it...the Mexicans are doing it.......the people being controlled and murdered by their governments all over the world.....don't have the guns to stop it.....
> 
> Guns are not the same as other regulated products........that is why they have their own Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> You are a fool.   You live in a relatively safe time and place.....which is the strangest condition known to man...for most of the world, safety and security don't exist.......they live in fear of both criminals and their governments.......we have had over 200 years of safety and security...and because of that you morons are going to give up the tool that made that possible.......
> 
> Will we experience the violence that other countries do.....not immediately.....but it only took Germany 20 years to go from a country with the rule of law and of democratic institutions....to murdering people in gas chambers......
> 
> Right now, across our border, Mexican people are being slaughtered by the police and military.......because they work for the drug cartels.....and every single argument you make for gun control....and gun regulation....is used by the Mexican government to keep those poor people unarmed...and victims
> 
> in the Balkans...in the 1990s.......the communists did not allow people to own guns.......and when communism fell...those same people who were slaves to the communists, because they did not have guns......were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing because they did not have guns......
> 
> Gun registration and control allows the bad guys to rape, murder and kill the good guys.......Look at Mexico you fucking moron......they have every single gun control law you want......and they are being slaughtered right across our border.......
> 
> That is why we can't register our guns.......we have actual history that shows what happens when you register guns in peaceful times....and then evil people get in charge.....I get it...you are too stupid to understand history....that it can actually happen again.........I can't say if you were born that stupid......or made yourself that stupid.....but you are......and that is why we oppose you......you are too foolish to understand human behavior and human history.......
> 
> Must be nice living in your arm chair........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be hell living in fear of your own shadow, tormented by suspicion and dark conspiracies.
> 
> No wonder your sort is dying out.  Nature has a way of removing outliers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuckwit.........tell that to the people living in democrat, inner city voting districts.......where they have the most gun control...and the criminals run free.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is hardly gun control in Chicago.  It's the lack of it next door.  Ever been to the Old West paradise of Gary, Indiana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that very same logic, Minnesota (being surrounded by states with less gun control) should be a venerable cesspool of gun violence, and yet....
> Tallying gun deaths: one Minnesotan killed every day by firearms
> Of course if one where to merely look at the headline, one might conclude this proves my assertion incorrect. However, if one were to actually read the above linked story, one would find:
> "One reason the numbers may surprise many Minnesotans is that most of the deaths were not covered by news media or otherwise publicly reported because they were suicides. Indeed, suicides outnumbered all other causes of gun-related deaths. Between 2000 and 2010, guns were used to commit an average 256 suicides each year in Minnesota compared with 70 homicides per year." And:
> "Still, Minnesota is nowhere near leading the nation in gun violence. The state ranked 31st in an FBI tally of the sheer numbers of firearm-related murders during 2011. Among 70 homicides in Minnesota that year, handguns were the most common weapon, used 36 times." Interesting, as most gun-control seems to be geared at "assault weapons", and "assault style weapons". Maybe the hand gun thing is unique to Minnesota.
> Table 20
> Oops, guess not, according to the FBI at least.
> From the Star Tribune, not exactly a bastion of conservative ideology:
> As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check
> 
> Notice how the highest bracket is not represented in the Minneapolis Metro area, the area with the highest crime rates. Interesting...
> 
> 
> "Opponents had feared that the law would lead to a surge in shootings and gun deaths. But Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension data show that fatalities involving permit holders are rare.* In the past five years, there have been five deadly or nonlethal instances of justifiable use of a firearm by permit holders."* As gun-carrying permits reach historic levels in Minnesota, related crimes remain in check
> Kinda blows a "small" hole in the whole "wild west" theory, doesn't it? Only one permit holder involved per year. Wow, what a bunch of gun waving lunatics.
Click to expand...



20 years of people carrying guns and not shooting each other also shows the anti gunners are wrong.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what are " reasonable restrictions" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines.  I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.
Click to expand...

So, taking into account what I posted in post #445, you would be in favor of making easier for a tyrannical government to go unchecked. At least you are being honest, or maybe you simply have not thought things through to the end.


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
Click to expand...



My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.

2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.

The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.

Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:

15th Amendment
*The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what are " reasonable restrictions" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines.  I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, taking into account what I posted in post #445, you would be in favor of making easier for a tyrannical government to go unchecked. At least you are being honest, or maybe you simply have not thought things through to the end.
Click to expand...


No, it's more along the lines of recognizing a slippery slope fallacy rather than a slippery slope.  I'm not for banning all or even most guns.


----------



## oldsoul

As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it.  The Nazis did very bad things.  Can we get back to gun control in the 21st century US now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison
> 
> So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
> *See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. *This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.
Click to expand...


That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.




I disagree with that.  All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.

Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination?  Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?

We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.

I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
> 
> 2nd Amendment
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
> 
> 15th Amendment
> *The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 19th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 24th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 26th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:

Shall not be infringed.
shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.
See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.


Coyote said:


> My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID


All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> 
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
> 
> 2nd Amendment
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
> 
> 15th Amendment
> *The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 19th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 24th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 26th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
> shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
> Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
> shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.
> See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
> For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.
Click to expand...


The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

It has that one qualifying phrase.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what are " reasonable restrictions" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, background checks, waiting periods, restricting certain types of weapons, such as what is commonly used for military and high capacity magazines.  I would also support a national registry, and some sort of educational requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, taking into account what I posted in post #445, you would be in favor of making easier for a tyrannical government to go unchecked. At least you are being honest, or maybe you simply have not thought things through to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's more along the lines of recognizing a slippery slope fallacy rather than a slippery slope.  I'm not for banning all or even most guns.
Click to expand...

What is the "slippery slope fallacy" as you see it? The "slippery slope" as I see it is overtly violating the COTUS, via gun regulation that violates the "shall not be infringed" clause.
I know what the SOTUS has ruled, I also know they have been wrong before.
So, if guns can be "regulated" pursuant to the 2nd, then I guess passing a law requiring people to get a permit for public speaking would be legal pursuant to the 1st, right? If not, explain to me what the difference is?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Coyote said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason to register guns is to ban and confiscate them.....that is why we are talking about it now.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We register automobiles.  We already ban some types of guns.  No one is talking about banning or confiscating all guns or even most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
Click to expand...


For one the so called "assault" rifle ban in nothing but a feel good waste of time and money because all an "assault" rifle is is an ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifle that has been around since 1885 with some new polymers for materials and some cosmetic doodads 

So in all reality the only reason to ban them is to eventually ban all semiautomatic rifles.

What does it matter if my rifle has a 10 or a 30 round magazine?
I have passed every background check that could conceivably be thrown at me and I have been deemed responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon.  What does it matter if that concealed weapon has a 10 round magazine or a 16 round magazine?

Will those extra 6 rounds all of a sudden turn me into a spree killer?

No it won't

I have no problem with keeping felons from getting firearms of any kind but telling me I can't have one particular style of a semiauto rifle or a magazine of what some idiot calls a high capacity is ridiculous


----------



## Skull Pilot

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
> 
> 2nd Amendment
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
> 
> 15th Amendment
> *The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 19th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 24th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 26th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
> shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
> Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
> shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.
> See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
> For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
> 
> It has that one qualifying phrase.
Click to expand...


no it is not.

The militia was considered all of the citizenry capable of fighting not government troops

It is the people's right to keep and bear arms and the people were the militia


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that.  All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.
> 
> Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination?  Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?
> 
> We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.
> 
> I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.
Click to expand...

Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that.  All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.
> 
> Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination?  Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?
> 
> We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.
> 
> I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?
Click to expand...


Hard to answer.

It's easier to answer what I consider reasonable.

Unreasonable would be banning ownership of guns for any reason other being a felon, history of violent domestic abuse or mental health issues.
Unreasonable would be banning magazines of 10 rounds or less.
Unreasonable would be requiring a lengthy or expensive training period - I think there should be a one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free.
Unreasonable would be anything that publishes private information on gun owners publically.
A 3-day waiting period is reasonable imo, mostly because it might limit impulse buying out of rage, or suicidal desires.  More than that would be unreasonable.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
> 
> 2nd Amendment
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
> 
> 15th Amendment
> *The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 19th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 24th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 26th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
> shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
> Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
> shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.
> See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
> For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
> 
> It has that one qualifying phrase.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll give you that, but consider this:

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous."
The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
Meaning of the phrase
So, a "well regulated Militia..." at the time of the 2nd adoption would NOT include the Government.
So, to reword it, A [properly functioning] militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
See how that differs from: A [government run] militia...


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that.  All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.
> 
> Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination?  Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?
> 
> We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.
> 
> I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to answer.
> 
> It's easier to answer what I consider reasonable.
> 
> Unreasonable would be banning ownership of guns for any reason other being a felon, history of violent domestic abuse or mental health issues.
> Unreasonable would be banning magazines of 10 rounds or less.
> Unreasonable would be requiring a lengthy or expensive training period - I think there should be a one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free.
> Unreasonable would be anything that publishes private information on gun owners publically.
> A 3-day waiting period is reasonable imo, mostly because it might limit impulse buying out of rage, or suicidal desires.  More than that would be unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree with you on what you have stated would be unreasonable. Would you find it reasonable to limit voting to those who have attended a " one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free."? If not, what makes guns different? They are both constitutionally protected rights. Would it be reasonable to institute a "waiting period" before one is "allowed" to publicly speak? If not, again, how is that any different?


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is getting back to gun control in the 21st century.........they disarmed their people and 20 years later murdered them...because the people didn't have guns..........same thing happened in the Balkans in the 90s...and Rwanda in the 90s.....and it is happening right now in Mexico.....today........again and again unarmed people are murdered by their governments...or the government can't stop one group from slaughtering another group......and you guys pretend like that has no bearing on current discussions......
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison
> 
> So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
> *See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. *This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.
Click to expand...

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.


----------



## Coyote

oldsoul said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time, registration and background checks today in the US is unrelated to disarming Europeans in days of yore.
> 
> If all you want to talk about is disarmament, start a thread on that.  Some of us are still focused on the subject of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison
> 
> So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
> *See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. *This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.
Click to expand...


Multiple SCOTUS' over the years have disagreed with you.


----------



## oldsoul

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison
> 
> So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
> *See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. *This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple SCOTUS' over the years have disagreed with you.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that settles it then doesn't it, because the SCOTUS has never reversed it's self right? Those deified justices have NEVER gotten it wrong, right? Saying "because SCOTUS says so," carries as much weight with me as someone standing in a garage and saying "I'm a car." Show me some argument, don't just repeat what someone else has said. Think for yourself.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
> 
> 2nd Amendment
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
> 
> 15th Amendment
> *The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 19th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 24th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 26th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
Click to expand...


My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.


Hey...guess what...the right to own a gun is the same.....you have to be a certain age, you can't be a felon and you might need to provide an I.D.

Why are you complaing?  Guns and voting already are restricted...


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...that's what they said in Germany, Britain and Australia...you guys act like there are no examples of this.......all through human history the governments around the world have ended up disarming the people.........you can keep saying you don't want to ban and confiscate guns...history shows you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only history that matters is US history because we are unique.
> 
> I don't want to ban guns.  I own guns.  My husband owns guns.  Seeking reasonable restrictions does not equal banning and confiscating.  Every right has limitations - none is unlimited.  Why do you think the second amendment should be unlimited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
> 
> 2nd Amendment
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
> 
> 15th Amendment
> *The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 19th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 24th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 26th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
Click to expand...



Yes....and under the 14th Amendment....registration and licensing of gun owners is also unconstitutional....


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.......the German government used the exact same arguments you are using.......the exact same arguments............they registered the guns for the exact same reason you have here......20 years later those registration lists were used to disarm gun owners and Jews...........they gassed them.........the communists disarmed the people of the Balkans....and then after the Soviet Union fell in the 90s........the military mirdered their ethnic enemies.....who were already disarmed........
> 
> Mexico disarmed its people.....and now the police and military are helping the drug cartels murder Mexicans in the 10s of thousands...right now...today....right across our border...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The German government did not have our Constitutional right to have arms, a right which has been strongly supported in court rulings.  Given that, I think the claim that they're going to disarm the populace similar to Nazi Germany is fear mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison
> 
> So, how, exactly, would "We the people" defend (aka protect) ourselves from a tyrannical government, if we where vastly out-gunned? How would that work, exactly? How would a people go about fighting a force that has tanks, armor, aircraft, warships, automatic weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. with hunting rifles, pick-ups, SUVs, fishing boats, pistols, and shot-guns?
> *See, the right to keep and bear arms must, necessarily, be unrestricted for the people to have any hope of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. *This is why we even have the 2nd amendment, to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny within our own government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the 2nd Amendment says however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NOTHING in the COTUS that gives the federal government the power to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. Nothing that says that they can pass any law so much as even restricting that right. Regardless of what the politically appointed Justices of the Supreme Court's opinion is, the fact is, it's not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple SCOTUS' over the years have disagreed with you.
Click to expand...



No, actually they haven't ....Scalia cites the various laws in Heller.....


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that.  All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.
> 
> Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination?  Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?
> 
> We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.
> 
> I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.
Click to expand...


2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right

Wrong.......we believe in common sense restrictions...which you guys do not....if you are a criminal, you can't buy, own or carry a gun....if you are dangerously mentally ill, you can't use a gun either........if you commit a crime with a gun, you will be arrested....you must be 18 to own a long gun and 21 to own a pistol....and to carry a pistol.....

So....which restrictions don't we support?


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was stated earlier (my apologies to the poster, I do not remember who it was), the real reason behind "gun-control" legislation, is: CONTROL. Control to make things "safer", control to be able to, eventually, confiscate all guns, control to maintain power, it really doesn't matter. What they are after is control, and they will not stop until they are completely destroyed, or they have TOTAL control. It's not about the guns, it's about gaining control, so as to maintain power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that.  All rights have limitations and restrictions and those restrictions most commonly have to do with when those rights intersect with someone else's rights or with public safety. 2nd Amendment advocates are the only one's I've met who seem to think there should be no restrictions on that right even though the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in favor of reasonable restrictions.
> 
> Even when you say it's necessary to defend against a "tyrannical government" - who exactly makes that determination?  Some nut bunkered down in Idaho?
> 
> We have a lot of checks and balances in place to prevent tyrannical governments - that includes the 2nd amendment but it also includes our entire system that while cumbersome makes it difficult for one person to accumulate a lot of power or to change the constitution.
> 
> I think reasonable restrictions on guns are appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is your "line in the sand" then? At what point to restrictions become "unreasonable"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to answer.
> 
> It's easier to answer what I consider reasonable.
> 
> Unreasonable would be banning ownership of guns for any reason other being a felon, history of violent domestic abuse or mental health issues.
> Unreasonable would be banning magazines of 10 rounds or less.
> Unreasonable would be requiring a lengthy or expensive training period - I think there should be a one-time educational component, like with getting a license to drive, pass a test, and that's it and it should be free.
> Unreasonable would be anything that publishes private information on gun owners publically.
> A 3-day waiting period is reasonable imo, mostly because it might limit impulse buying out of rage, or suicidal desires.  More than that would be unreasonable.
Click to expand...



Your first point w already have.

What reason is there to limit normal gun owners from having a normal magazine for their pistol or rifle?

any training period would be the same as a literacy test for the Right to vote.......

3 day waiting periods have not been show to do anything.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Restrictions as a whole are unreasonable. Everyone in America should be allowed to defend themselves. It's pretty clear that even if the government cared, they cannot protect every living citizen at all times, and especially not from themselves._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they unreasonable?
> 
> You can not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.
> You can not libel or slander.
> You can not incite a crowd to violence.
> You can not conduct human sacrifices in the name of religion.
> 
> All of those are restrictions on basic rights?
> 
> How is banning certain types of weapons preventing you from defending yourself?  Do you need a rocket launcher to defend yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may indeed require a rocket launcher to defend myself. That's not the point though. You say that NO right is unlimited, right? So let's restrict YOUR right to vote. Let's say a person must pass a litmus test on current affairs to be able to vote. Oh, wait, that's been tried and shut down (Jim Crow). So, your assertion is WRONG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted.  I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID.
> 
> 2nd Amendment
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, t*he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position, over multiple cases, that regulation is not an infringement so long as it's reasonable.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have the right to vote reiterated over four amendments:
> 
> 15th Amendment
> *The right of citizens of the United States *to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 19th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 24th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> 26th Amendment
> The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
> 
> The SCOTUS has taken the position that literacy tests, poll taxes etc violate that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't help but notice the difference in phrasing:
> 
> Shall not be infringed.
> shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
> shall not be denied or abridged....on account of sex.
> Shall not be denied or a bridged...by reason of failure to pay...
> shall not be denied or abridged...on account of age.
> See the difference? The 2nd has no qualifying statement. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th all do.
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> My right to vote is already restricted. I have to be a certain age, I can't be a felon, I might need to provide ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of which is in the COTUS, is done by due process or is HOTLY debated.
> For the record, I would be in favor of an ID requirement, as long as it is written into the COTUS via amendment. Otherwise, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second also states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...
> 
> It has that one qualifying phrase.
Click to expand...



Sorry.......it has nothing to do with the Right that the people have regardless of the militia.........it doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.....


----------



## oldsoul

I just had a very interesting realization. All this talk back and forth about the 2nd amendment, and the "arguments" presented by those who want more control over guns has caused me to become slightly less likely to accept ANY control over who has and uses guns. I am beginning to see more and more clearly why we need more and more people in this country armed as soon as possible.

Restrictions I would accept:

Must be an adult to purchase a firearm of any kind.
State level background checks for violent criminal history, crimes involving a gun, and serious mental issues.
Safety device, such as a trigger lock, included with all firearm purchases.
Massive minimum penalties for those violating gun laws, and/or using a gun while committing a crime.
Three strikes and your out. Three crimes, at different times, involving a firearm, and you leave prison in a body bag.
Felons not allowed to possess a firearm, ever.
There may be others I am not thinking of at this time.


----------

