# Hawaii proves gun control laws don't stop criminals....felon, with 10 convictions, living on an island...gets guns easily.



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

The anti-gun extremists want gun control to stop criminals from getting guns.  Gun control doesn't stop criminals....

Gun control simply adds layers of red tape and increases the legal peril for normal, law abiding gun owners who get scooped up for non-gun crime related paperwork infractions....paperwork infractions created to destroy their lives.

Meanwhile, the criminals get all the illegal guns they want.

The perfect example....Hawaii......an island....with every single gun control law outside of simply banning and confiscating guns....

And this guy ....

*You see, Hawaii has pretty much every measure a gun control advocate could reasonably want. It’s also an island, which means no one comes in from another state without having to pass through some kind of security that generally isn’t going to allow guns to come through. They’re as isolated as you can get.*

*And yet, this happens:

Prosecutors charged Loran Gross of Mountain View with 22 offenses after a massive bust at his home last week Friday.

Detectives found over 27 pounds of dried marijuana, more than 230 live marijuana plants, 14 rifles, and more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition in his possession.

Police also found a semi-automatic hand gun, along with drug paraphernalia*

*Now, Gross has 10 prior felony convictions, meaning there’s no way he purchased those 14 rifles and the one semi-automatic handgun lawfully. He just couldn’t.*

*So, with all of Hawaii’s advantages, just how did he manage to get his grubbing little paws on them?

After all, we’re told that gun control works and the only reason places like New York or Chicago are having issues now isn’t because gun control fails, it’s because of all those other states. People just drive the guns into the Big Apple or the Windy City and sell them, thus negating all the good gun control supposedly does.*

*Yet Hawaii doesn’t have that going on. You simply can’t blame Indiana for criminals owning guns in Honolulu. As previously noted, you can’t get there without going through some kind of security, either via ship or plane. Ain’t no one driving there. If they are, I’m interested to know how.*











						Hawaiian Felon Proves Just How Useless Gun Control Is
					

The arrest of a 10-time felon in Hawaii dismantles so many claims about gun control that it's downright hilarious.




					bearingarms.com


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

The more gun control the government passes, the more guns we need.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

Gun control is proof we do not have a democratic republic.
In a democratic republic, you can't have arbitrary authoritarian edicts.
Instead, all legal authority has to come from the inherent rights of individuals and their defense.
Gun control laws do not do that, and instead create a two tiered society where the corrupt government illegally has guns, and the general population that should be the source of all legal authority, is illegally denied guns.


----------



## jillian (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gun extremists want gun control to stop criminals from getting guns.  Gun control doesn't stop criminals....
> 
> Gun control simply adds layers of red tape and increases the legal peril for normal, law abiding gun owners who get scooped up for non-gun crime related paperwork infractions....paperwork infractions created to destroy their lives.
> 
> ...


And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.

you’re welcome


----------



## jillian (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Gun control is proof we do not have a democratic republic.
> In a democratic republic, you can't have arbitrary authoritarian edicts.
> Instead, all legal authority has to come from the inherent rights of individuals and their defense.
> Gun control laws do not do that, and instead create a two tiered society where the corrupt government illegally has guns, and the general population that should be the source of all legal authority, is illegally denied guns.


I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

jillian said:


> And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.
> 
> you’re welcome



Wrong.
The laws against robbery likely do stop most robberies people consider.
But the minor additional gun law penalty can NEVER prevent someone intending to commit a murder or armed robbery that already had a MUCH higher penalty then the gun law.
It is absolutely impossible to ever work.

But as a negative side effect, gun laws will intimidate honest people and cause the general population of honest people to be unarmed, which is totally horrific.
Without an armed general population, you no longer have a democratic republic.
You instead have an armed elite ruling over a helpless majority.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

jillian said:


> I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you



The point of "well regulated militia" means that by having arms they will already be familiar with them and ready to go if the time comes for an armed defense to be needed.
Regulated means well functioning on a regular basis, like a well regulated clock or regular bowel movements.
It does NOT mean restricted.
When the constitution gives the feds authority to regulate instate commerce, they did not intend that to mean restriction.
They means the opposite, to prevent restrictions by any one state, so that interstate commerce could remain regular and unrestricted.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

jillian said:


> And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.
> 
> you’re welcome




Wow...you are still dumb.

Idiots like you pass more and more laws which the criminals ignore....but those laws do what you intend...they make owning and carrying a gun more dangerous, legally, for law abiding gun owners.  You increase the legal red tape and peril for normal people...while doing nothing to stop criminals....you goal is to take guns, not to stop criminals....since your political party, the democrat party, keeps releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders.

The way to stop gun crime is to keep the actual gun offenders locked up...since you won't do that, we know that you don't care about criminals...you simply hate normal people who own and carry guns for self defense.

You are insane.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The laws against robbery likely do stop most robberies people consider.
> But the minor additional gun law penalty can NEVER prevent someone intending to commit a murder or armed robbery that already had a MUCH higher penalty then the gun law.
> It is absolutely impossible to ever work.
> ...



you no longer have a democratic republic.
You instead have an armed elite ruling over a helpless majority.


Australia is finding that out with the Chinese Flu police state.....


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

Anti rape laws don't prevent rape. Anti theft laws don't prevent theft.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gun extremists want gun control to stop criminals from getting guns.  Gun control doesn't stop criminals....
> 
> Gun control simply adds layers of red tape and increases the legal peril for normal, law abiding gun owners who get scooped up for non-gun crime related paperwork infractions....paperwork infractions created to destroy their lives.
> 
> ...


Might as well say..
Hawaii proves drunk driving laws don't stop drunks....drunk, with 2 DUI convictions, living on an island...still driving.​


----------



## Esdraelon (Aug 4, 2021)

jillian said:


> And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.
> 
> you’re welcome


The most disgusting thing about angry, petulant people like yourself is that even if you KNEW FOR SURE that if the government decided to confiscate weapons it would cause 100+ thousand dead... you'd STILL be for it.  It isn't about making the world safe, it's about crushing those you disagree with at any price.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> The most disgusting thing about angry, petulant people like yourself is that even if you KNEW FOR SURE that if the government decided to confiscate weapons it would cause 100+ thousand dead... you'd STILL be for it.  It isn't about making the world safe, it's about crushing those you disagree with at any price.


Not surprising that you think you know so much about someone you never met. Crazy people often think they have the ability to read others minds.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Anti rape laws don't prevent rape. Anti theft laws don't prevent theft.



Wrong.
Anti rape laws most definitely do greatly reduce rape.
Anti theft laws most definitely do greatly reduce theft.
But since armed criminals deliberately intend to violate much stricter laws against murder or armed robbery, then gun control laws can not possibly have any effect in reducing murder or armed robbery.

In fact, gun control laws increase murder and armed robberies  because they make armed resistance to crime less likely.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> Might as well say..
> Hawaii proves drunk driving laws don't stop drunks....drunk, with 2 DUI convictions, living on an island...still driving.​



DUI is not intentional.
While DUI laws can not stop the first incident of DUI, it can reduce repeat offenses.

But since armed crimes are intentional and not easily caught, then gun control laws can not do any good.
The intentional criminal is not going to be deterred by the smaller gun control penalty.
Anyone selling drugs has to be armed.
Therefore laws trying to disarm people are never going to be any more successful then the War on Drugs failure.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Not surprising that you think you know so much about someone you never met. Crazy people often think they have the ability to read others minds.



No, he is not claiming to be able to read minds, but that the civil war over gun control is assured.
Gun control is totally contradictory to the basis of a democratic republic.
The founders did not trust or want mercenary police or military.
And they likely were right.
An armed population likely is essential to any democratic republic.
The police and military already are out of control, lying to us, and committing wholesale murder of innocents.
We see this in War on Drugs shootings, no-knock warrants, lies about Iraqi WMD, etc.
We likely already are living in a total authoritarian dictatorship.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> DUI is not intentional.
> While DUI laws can not stop the first incident of DUI, it can reduce repeat offenses.
> 
> But since armed crimes are intentional and not easily caught, then gun control laws can not do any good.
> ...


Gun control laws are not actually aimed at stopping armed crimes, they are intended to make certain semi-autos unlawful and people with felony convictions from having a firearm. Just because certain people choose to ignore certain gun restrictions doesn't make those restrictions useless. They do serve a purpose.


----------



## Flash (Aug 4, 2021)

jillian said:


> I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you




You didn't read the _Heller_ case did you?  ...and you sure as hell don't know what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written, do you? 

I'll clue you in.

_Heller_ said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Well regulated meant well provisioned.  I am well regulated because I have 29 AR-15s and 30,000 rounds of ammo.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> Gun control laws are not actually aimed at stopping armed crimes, they are intended to make certain semi-autos unlawful and people with felony convictions from having a firearm. Just because certain people choose to ignore certain gun restrictions doesn't make those restrictions useless. They do serve a purpose.



It is illegal to make some guns that were legal, suddenly illegal.
Its called ex post facto.

It likely was illegal to make it illegal for ex-felons to be armed in 1968.
The constitution does not allow for any federal firearm laws at all, and you can't treat anyone as a 2nd class citizen.

The purpose these gun control laws serve is illegal inherently.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Anti rape laws don't prevent rape. Anti theft laws don't prevent theft.




Nope...which is why people need to have access to guns.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> It is illegal to make some guns that were legal, suddenly illegal.
> Its called ex post facto.
> 
> It likely was illegal to make it illegal for ex-felons to be armed in 1968.
> ...


As for the Constitution not allowing for federal firearm laws this is interesting reading..Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional? | Washington Monthly


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> As for the Constitution not allowing for federal firearm laws this is interesting reading..Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional? | Washington Monthly




Notice....something you guys never want to you notice.....the Right as explained in Heller has very specific limits...having nothing to do with banning or confiscating arms....

Felons....dangerously mentally ill, some prohibitions on location, and making sure defective merchandise isn't protected...

Neither ruling allows for banning rifles or pistols..something you guys desperately want to do...

_*McDonald, *_*while supposedly establishing a general “right to bear arms,” is almost entirely devoted to a more limited right—the right to keep a firearm at home for self-defense. Unfortunately, incorporation is an all-or-nothing business, so the justices found themselves propounding a sweeping individual right, which they then tried to walk back by ad hoc rationalizing: The right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 


The Court stated that its holding would not overturn state laws outlawing the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or that imposed conditions and qualifications on commercial arms sales. Clearly, McDonald did not settle the limits of the right to bear arms.*


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> As for the Constitution not allowing for federal firearm laws this is interesting reading..Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional? | Washington Monthly




Also....Caetano ruled that Dangerous and Unusual does not apply to common rifles and pistols....like the AR-15.......Scalia opinion in Friedman v highland park states directly that the AR-15 rifle, the gun you guys want to ban...is protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution and is not created by or dependent on the Constitution...you guys don't want to understand that.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Also....Caetano ruled that Dangerous and Unusual does not apply to common rifles and pistols....like the AR-15.......Scalia opinion in Friedman v highland park states directly that the AR-15 rifle, the gun you guys want to ban...is protected by the 2nd Amendment.....
> 
> The Right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution and is not created by or dependent on the Constitution...you guys don't want to understand that.


A lot of things were not created or dependent on the Constitution..FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF..and the SCOTUS has given the government leeway in regulating armaments which is why you don't see people walking around with sub-machine guns or RPGs etc.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> A lot of things were not created or dependent on the Constitution..FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF..and the SCOTUS has given the government leeway in regulating armaments which is why you don't see people walking around with sub-machine guns or RPGs etc.




Heller, Caetano, Miller, Friedman, those are the cases that cover just about everything you need to know about guns.........you should read them.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 4, 2021)

jillian said:


> I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you


The right of the *people* to keep and bear Arms *shall not be infringed*. So simple and direct that only a lefty can ignore it.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Heller, Caetano, Miller, Friedman, those are the cases that cover just about everything you need to know about guns.........you should read them.


Did any of them allow for people to own 60 cal. machine guns and RPGs??..which was my point about SCOTUS allowing for some government oversight on weapons for civilian use.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The right of the *people* to keep and bear Arms *shall not be infringed*. So simple and direct that only a lefty can ignore it.


You left out the first part..A well regulated Militia, being necessary


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> Did any of them allow for people to own 60 cal. machine guns and RPGs??..which was my point about SCOTUS allowing for some government oversight on weapons for civilian use.




An RPG is not a rifle or pistol you nitwit.......and the 60 calibur machine gun is not an individual weapon, it is a crew served gun, you doofus....

Rifles and pistols.....very easy.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> An RPG is not a rifle or pistol you nitwit.......and the 60 calibur machine gun is not an individual weapon, it is a crew served gun, you doofus....
> 
> Rifles and pistols.....very easy.


They are weapons which you people would scramble like hell to get if the SCOTUS ruled the government had no right to ban them..who you kidding.


----------



## AMart (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Anti rape laws don't prevent rape. Anti theft laws don't prevent theft.


Sure they do. Threat of punishment is a good deterrent. And if locked up the damage to others is limited. Also those crimes violate others. Owning a gun doesn't violate others.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> You left out the first part..A well regulated Militia, being necessary




Nope.....the prefatory clause has no bearing on the operative clause....try reading Heller...

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
----
1. Operative Clause.

 a. “Right of the People.” 

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## Coyote (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gun extremists want gun control to stop criminals from getting guns.  Gun control doesn't stop criminals....
> 
> Gun control simply adds layers of red tape and increases the legal peril for normal, law abiding gun owners who get scooped up for non-gun crime related paperwork infractions....paperwork infractions created to destroy their lives.
> 
> ...


You would be shocked to find that anti- murder laws don’t stop murder either.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Coyote said:


> You would be shocked to find that anti- murder laws don’t stop murder either.




You are the idiots who think they do...since you also believe that gun control stops criminals.

What actually stops criminals?   Keeping violent criminals in jail and prison........except the democrat party keeps letting known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of both jail and prison, over and over again.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Anti rape laws most definitely do greatly reduce rape.
> Anti theft laws most definitely do greatly reduce theft.
> But since armed criminals deliberately intend to violate much stricter laws against murder or armed robbery, then gun control laws can not possibly have any effect in reducing murder or armed robbery.
> ...


Yes, and reasonable gun laws reduce gun crime. You can't have it both ways. If 100% compliance is required for one, it should be required for all.


----------



## Ben Thomson (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Nope.....the prefatory clause has no bearing on the operative clause....try reading Heller...
> 
> But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
> ----
> ...


So Heller told us.. This is what the Founders really meant even though they didn't phrase it that way...got it. Imagine the Founders being raised from the dead and having lived in today's America for six months. Wonder what they would say if asked..would you guys like another stab at wording the 2nd??


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, he is not claiming to be able to read minds, but that the civil war over gun control is assured.
> Gun control is totally contradictory to the basis of a democratic republic.
> The founders did not trust or want mercenary police or military.
> And they likely were right.
> ...


Of course, you are full of shit anyway, but what I said had nothing to do with your diatribe. I was referring to his supposedly magical ability to fortel what a strainger might do in a hypothetical future situation.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes, and reasonable gun laws reduce gun crime. You can't have it both ways. If 100% compliance is required for one, it should be required for all.




Wrong....we have 20,000 gun laws at the local, state and federal level......the problem isn't that we don't have enough gun laws...the problem, that you morons don't want to address, is the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders, the individuals doing 95% of all the shooting in our cities.........


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> So Heller told us.. This is what the Founders really meant even though they didn't phrase it that way...got it. Imagine the Founders being raised from the dead and having lived in today's America for six months. Wonder what they would say if asked..would you guys like another stab at wording the 2nd??




They would wonder why we didn't have any guns on Jan. 6...............and if they had another stab at the 2nd Amendment, they would have mandated that all homes have rifles and pistols...and that the federal government not have any.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes, and reasonable gun laws reduce gun crime. You can't have it both ways. If 100% compliance is required for one, it should be required for all.




Why do the democrats keep releasing violent gun offenders?  You won't address this, since it is the actual problem that we have....we do not have a problem with the legal gun owners in this country..


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Why do the democrats keep releasing violent gun offenders?  You won't address this, since it is the actual problem that we have....we do not have a problem with the legal gun owners in this country..


Really? More than 80% of mass shooters over the last 3 decades purchased their guns legally..








						More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally
					

More than 80 percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been purchased legally, like they were in San Bernardino.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Really? More than 80% of mass shooters over the last 3 decades purchased their guns legally..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Do you understand why?  You dumb ass......


Because before the mass public shooting they had no criminal record which would have barred them from buying a gun.....

And to put this "problem," in perspective.....

Americans own 600 million guns, and over 19.4 million legally carry their legal guns out in public for self defense.....

.......total number of people who engaged in mass public shootings in 2019....

12, out of over 320 million people in the United States.


Total number of people killed in those 12 mass public shootings?

73.

Compared to?

Deer kill 200 people a year.

Bathtubs kill 350 people a year.

Ladders kill 200 people a year.

Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year.

In Japan, bathtubs actually kill between 14,000 and 19,000 people a year.

 gun grabbers push mass public shootings for one particular reason......

Almost 99.99% of gun murder is not mass public shootings......they are criminals shooting other criminals in tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities.....

Of the 10,258 gun murders 70-80% of the gun murder victims are actual criminals....they are not normal Americans going about their normal lives.

That leaves about 2,051 actual innocent (?) people as victims of gun murder...but of those, the vast majority are the friends, family and associates of criminals..or people who attend block parties or birthday parties where criminals show up and get shot at by other criminals........

sooooooooo.....

Most Americans are not criminals.

If you are not a criminal.

If you are not a family member of a criminal.

If you are not an associate of a criminal.

If you don't live in the tiny, democrat party controlled areas of cities where criminals control the streets.

If you don't attend block parties and birthday parties where criminals show up.........

If you are none of the above, the odds of you getting shot by a criminal are almost zero.....

And Americans know this both instinctively and statistically....so they do not actual fear getting shot and killed by criminals....

However.....when a mass public shooting happens, where an individual with a gun enters a public space and shoots random strangers......that may effect normal Americans..........this is not true....but that is the one type of gun murder that most Americans fear...since it is random and effects normal places where people go...

Again......320,000,000 million people in the U.S......

12 people out of those 320,000,000 engaged in mass public shootings in 2019.......killing a total of 73 people.....

The rarest of rare events.............

So anti-gun extremists push  mass public shootings because they are covered 24/7 by the democrat party press while the black on black gun murder that is the majority of shootings in our country go uncovered because they occur in democrat party controlled cities.....


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Really? More than 80% of mass shooters over the last 3 decades purchased their guns legally..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you really this stupid?

Gun murders in the U.S.......2019...

10,258

Gun murders in mass public shootings in 2019....

73

How many individuals committed mass public shootings in 2019?

12, out of 320,000,000 people.....

You idiot.....

Sell your crap to biden voters...


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Do you understand why?  You dumb ass......
> 
> 
> Because before the mass public shooting they had no criminal record which would have barred them from buying a gun.....
> ...


You're trying to say 80% of mass shooters over the last 3 decades never said or did anything to indicate what they eventually did? You are stupider than I thought, and that's pretty hard to do.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Are you really this stupid?
> 
> Gun murders in the U.S.......2019...
> 
> ...


If you think I'm trying to convince you of anything, you're wrong again. You are obviously a wasted mind, incapable of rational thought.


----------



## SavannahMann (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The point of "well regulated militia" means that by having arms they will already be familiar with them and ready to go if the time comes for an armed defense to be needed.
> Regulated means well functioning on a regular basis, like a well regulated clock or regular bowel movements.
> It does NOT mean restricted.
> When the constitution gives the feds authority to regulate instate commerce, they did not intend that to mean restriction.
> They means the opposite, to prevent restrictions by any one state, so that interstate commerce could remain regular and unrestricted.



Actually. No. 

In context of the era the Second was written in Well Regulated meant when activated the Militia would obey Military Type orders from officers appointed by the various Governors. Very few States had any kind of training program for the Militias. 

A close but by no means exact modern equivalent was the Draft. Each area was given a quota and each area had to provide bodies for the Militia when activated.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're trying to say 80% of mass shooters over the last 3 decades never said or did anything to indicate what they eventually did? You are stupider than I thought, and that's pretty hard to do.




Wow....the stupid is strong with you...you should actually understand the topic before you post on it.

When you go to a gun store to buy a gun, you submit a form to have a background check.  The gun store runs that form thru the NICS system....if you are not a criminal with a record, you get passed......these guys did not get flagged because they did not have criminal records....

What their families knew...what their schools knew....what their psychiatrists knew is not in the background check, nor should it be unless they really think they are a danger to society...since 99% of the mentally ill are not dangerous to others.........

You are an idiot....


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wow....the stupid is strong with you...you should actually understand the topic before you post on it.
> 
> When you go to a gun store to buy a gun, you submit a form to have a background check.  The gun store runs that form thru the NICS system....if you are not a criminal with a record, you get passed......these guys did not get flagged because they did not have criminal records....
> 
> ...


Come on down to Texas. You can buy a truck load of guns with no background check. Hell, they won't even ask your name.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Come on down to Texas. You can buy a truck load of guns with no background check. Hell, they won't even ask your name.




Moron, these guys didn't do that.........they went to gun stores.....or murdered the owners and stole the guns.......or used straw buyers...you idiot.....do some basic research...


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron, these guys didn't do that.........they went to gun stores.....or murdered the owners and stole the guns.......or used straw buyers...you idiot.....do some basic research...


So no gun crime has ever been committed by someone who bought a gun from an individual? You got a link showing that?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So no gun crime has ever been committed by someone who bought a gun from an individual? You got a link showing that?




Hmmmm....did I post that....?

Moron.... you posted about mass public shooters......not criminals in general.

You idiot....but like a typical leftist, when the facts, truth and reality show you don't know what you are talking about, you engage in moving the goal post or the gun control bait and switch......

There were 12 mass public shooters in 2019........most if not all did not have criminal records...so could buy their gun from a gun store......you can go through each history to find out which ones and how they acquired their guns....

As to the actual other criminals.....of the other 10,185 gun murders in 2019, the majority of those criminals with actual criminal records purchased their guns from straw buyers, usually baby mommas, grand mothers, mothers, sisters of gang members.......or they stole their guns......and I have posted this information for years now........


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The more gun control the government passes, the more guns we need.


Gospel


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hmmmm....did I post that....?
> 
> Moron.... you posted about mass public shooters......not criminals in general.
> 
> ...


Exactly how does a straw buyer differ from purchase from an individual? Since there is no obligation to even care if a purchaser can even legally own a gun, how can you differentiate between them and a straw buyer?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 4, 2021)

jillian said:


> I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you


What about the whole "well-regulated militia"?

You idiots always make general suggestions about a militia but you never actually offer any sort of argument or reasoning in support of whatever it is you are vaguely suggesting.

Here's what the entire amendment means:

Because states need to draw from the populace, a militia consisting of people who are armed and familiar with their own weapons, and because the United States will also call upon those militia of each state for the common defense, neither the state nor the federal government shall infringe on the right of the people to keep arms and to bear those arms in defense of the respective states or the United States.

Is that clear enough for you?  

Let's hear your interpretation so we can all laugh.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Come on down to Texas. You can buy a truck load of guns with no background check. Hell, they won't even ask your name.


And that would be the way it is supposed to work, but sadly, Texas has a long way to go to restore our individual rights.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 5, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Exactly how does a straw buyer differ from purchase from an individual? Since there is no obligation to even care if a purchaser can even legally own a gun, how can you differentiate between them and a straw buyer?




A straw buyer is knowingly going to break the law by supplying a gun to a criminal...so they already know they are in legal trouble.   They don't care about the background check.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 5, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Exactly how does a straw buyer differ from purchase from an individual? Since there is no obligation to even care if a purchaser can even legally own a gun, how can you differentiate between them and a straw buyer?




And here is the test.....about how serious you are about stopping criminals versus simply trying to jam up normal gun owners.

The simple solution is to open up the Federal data base for criminals to everyone....that way, if you are selling a gun to an individual, and you want to make sure they aren't a criminal, you go to an app...on your phone, punch in the buyers name, birthdate, and social security number......and if they are a felon, have warrants or a hold for mental health issues, you will know right away....no fee, no wait.


You also don't set up a permanent record of the sale.....

This covers all of the bases you say you are concerned about but doesn't allow you to jam up normal gun owners......'

You would support this?


----------



## jillian (Aug 5, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> What about the whole "well-regulated militia"?
> 
> You idiots always make general suggestions about a militia but you never actually offer any sort of argument or reasoning in support of whatever it is you are vaguely suggesting.
> 
> ...


My “interpretation, little twit, is what every justice until Scalia knew was true.

or are those words not there, dumbo? I’m always amused by pretend constitutionalists who never took a con law class. Your ignorance is always fun though.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Aug 5, 2021)

jillian said:


> My “interpretation, little twit, is what every justice until Scalia knew was true.


You mean, what YOU THINK every justice MAY HAVE thought.  It doesn't get any more speculative than that shit.


jillian said:


> or are those words not there, dumbo?


Those words are there.  I asked you to explain why that makes any fucking difference whatsoever to "the right of the people....shall not be infringed."


jillian said:


> I’m always amused by pretend constitutionalists who never took a con law class. Your ignorance is always fun though.


I took such a class.  I assume you are familiar with the "rules of construction" are you not?  If the language of a term or clause is not susceptible to multiple interpretations, it will be given its ordinary, plain meaning.

Please make your argument as to why this restatement of the 2A is *not *the plain, ordinary fucking meaning of the 2A:


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> *Because states need to draw from the populace, a militia consisting of people who are armed and familiar with their own weapons, and because the United States will also call upon those militia of each state for the common defense, neither the state nor the federal government shall infringe on the right of the people to keep arms and to bear those arms in defense of the respective states or the United States.*


I will wait for your scholarly remarks.


----------



## Peace (Aug 5, 2021)

jillian said:


> And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.
> 
> you’re welcome


And you still advocate those that break the law be let go based on their skin color, so those laws are worthless when you lack stiff penalties to enforce those laws!


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> A straw buyer is knowingly going to break the law by supplying a gun to a criminal...so they already know they are in legal trouble.   They don't care about the background check.


And an individual seller doesn't care if the buyer is a criminal, or about a background check. He has no obligation to care about whether the buyer is a criminal, and no obligation to find out. At least we have laws to prosecute a straw buyer when he is discovered. An individual selling a gun to a crook has no concern about that. You are making a distinction without a material difference between the two.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And here is the test.....about how serious you are about stopping criminals versus simply trying to jam up normal gun owners.
> 
> The simple solution is to open up the Federal data base for criminals to everyone....that way, if you are selling a gun to an individual, and you want to make sure they aren't a criminal, you go to an app...on your phone, punch in the buyers name, birthdate, and social security number......and if they are a felon, have warrants or a hold for mental health issues, you will know right away....no fee, no wait.
> 
> ...


Sounds a lot like a background check to me. Why would you not want a requirement to see if a purchaser can legally own a gun? As always, you gun nuts just want more guns out there. Doesn't matter to you that a lot are purchased by crooks.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 5, 2021)

jillian said:


> My “interpretation, little twit, is what every justice until Scalia knew was true.
> 
> or are those words not there, dumbo? I’m always amused by pretend constitutionalists who never took a con law class. Your ignorance is always fun though.




Hey...dipshit....Scalia goes through the history of the Right to Bear Arms from England, the colonies, the early states and the rest.......you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 5, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> And an individual seller doesn't care if the buyer is a criminal, or about a background check. He has no obligation to care about whether the buyer is a criminal, and no obligation to find out. At least we have laws to prosecute a straw buyer when he is discovered. An individual selling a gun to a crook has no concern about that. You are making a distinction without a material difference between the two.




An individual caught selling to a felon can be arrested......normal people do care about selling guns to criminals...

Too bad for you that guns from individuals are the last means criminals use to get guns.  They don't trust people they do not know, so only use people they know........making the whole crap about individual sellers stupid......

And you didn't answer my question......because you know that the answer means you don't get to arrest normal gun owners or confiscate guns...


Again....

We allow normal people to access the NICS system through a phone app when they sell a gun.  They submit the name, birthdate, and SS# of the buyer, and on that app, the criminal history of the buyer will show up as well as any mental health holds on their record......it costs nothing, it will take seconds, and then you don't have to worry about selling a gun to a felon....

Do you accept this solution?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 5, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Sounds a lot like a background check to me. Why would you not want a requirement to see if a purchaser can legally own a gun? As always, you gun nuts just want more guns out there. Doesn't matter to you that a lot are purchased by crooks.




Why...?  One, Universal Background Checks are only desired by people like you because you want gun registration.  UBCs would require all guns to be registered so that you could tell if a gun had a background check done when it was transferred........then, when you guys get the power, you would use that registration list to ban and confiscate guns...

So no....I will go with my plan..........a free phone app.....


----------



## Godboy (Aug 5, 2021)

jillian said:


> I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you


Militias consist of individual civilians who own their own guns.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> An individual caught selling to a felon can be arrested......normal people do care about selling guns to criminals...
> 
> Too bad for you that guns from individuals are the last means criminals use to get guns.  They don't trust people they do not know, so only use people they know........making the whole crap about individual sellers stupid......
> 
> ...


No. An individual caught selling to a felon has done nothing legally wrong. Individuals have no obligation to know if the person they sell to is a felon, and he has no obligation to find out. I have personally given you links proving that dozens of times. There is nothing to fear from buying from a strainger. The strainger doesn't know the purchaser, and there is no obligation for them to find out anything about him dunb ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> An individual caught selling to a felon can be arrested......normal people do care about selling guns to criminals...
> 
> Too bad for you that guns from individuals are the last means criminals use to get guns.  They don't trust people they do not know, so only use people they know........making the whole crap about individual sellers stupid......
> 
> ...


What you are describing is a backgrounf check much like is proposed. The main difference would be the requirement to do that with all sales, not just when the seller wanted to do it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 5, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Why...?  One, Universal Background Checks are only desired by people like you because you want gun registration.  UBCs would require all guns to be registered so that you could tell if a gun had a background check done when it was transferred........then, when you guys get the power, you would use that registration list to ban and confiscate guns...
> 
> So no....I will go with my plan..........a free phone app.....


Yep, you're still an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No. An individual caught selling to a felon has done nothing legally wrong. Individuals have no obligation to know if the person they sell to is a felon, and he has no obligation to find out. I have personally given you links proving that dozens of times. There is nothing to fear from buying from a strainger. The strainger doesn't know the purchaser, and there is no obligation for them to find out anything about him dunb ass.




Idiot......the criminal buying the gun knows it is illegal, and when he is caught with the illegal gun, he can be sent to prison...then the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians will promptly let him out.

Criminals do not do buys from strangers, you idiot.....you were shown that the mass public shooters bought their guns legally or stole them..so then you changed the topic to all criminals....the typical bait and switch with you asshats........and then you were shown that criminals use straw buyers they know......family and friends or known criminals.....

Your fixation on background checks is stupid, since criminals get around them...

What you don't want, don't care about, is the democrat party releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders who have already been captured for multiple gun offenses who they release over and over again....these individuals are doing 95% of all the shooting, and we already know who they are...you idiot....you morons keep letting them go.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> What you are describing is a backgrounf check much like is proposed. The main difference would be the requirement to do that with all sales, not just when the seller wanted to do it.




No....the problem for you is it doesn't require registering guns to do......what you want and need is gun registration...and to get that, you push universal background checks, something that will not stop criminals from getting guns...but will require law abiding people to register their legal guns...


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep, you're still an idiot.




Yep....you know that a free app will not require gun registration...that is what you want.....


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Idiot......the criminal buying the gun knows it is illegal, and when he is caught with the illegal gun, he can be sent to prison...then the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians will promptly let him out.
> 
> Criminals do not do buys from strangers, you idiot.....you were shown that the mass public shooters bought their guns legally or stole them..so then you changed the topic to all criminals....the typical bait and switch with you asshats........and then you were shown that criminals use straw buyers they know......family and friends or known criminals.....
> 
> ...


As I have often said before, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You are an idiot lost cause gun nut who is a waste of human cells. You are just like that crazy pillow guy who repeats the same disproven crap no matter how many times he is shown to be wrong.  Or perhaps he is just like you.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No....the problem for you is it doesn't require registering guns to do......what you want and need is gun registration...and to get that, you push universal background checks, something that will not stop criminals from getting guns...but will require law abiding people to register their legal guns...


You're still an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> As I have often said before, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You are an idiot lost cause gun nut who is a waste of human cells. You are just like that crazy pillow guy who repeats the same disproven crap no matter how many times he is shown to be wrong.  Or perhaps he is just like you.




You still haven't answered the question which answers the question.  You don't care about background checks....that is the fig leaf you asshats want to use to get gun registration...

When given the proposal for a phone app that would achieve what you want.........but without the need for a new fee and especially without the need for gun registration....you refuse to answer.....

You are evil.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You still haven't answered the question which answers the question.  You don't care about background checks....that is the fig leaf you asshats want to use to get gun registration...
> 
> When given the proposal for a phone app that would achieve what you want.........but without the need for a new fee and especially without the need for gun registration....you refuse to answer.....
> 
> You are evil.


I already said that sounds a lot like the proposed background checks, dumb ass, and we don't have federal gun registration now, you idiot. No reason to add it for individual sales.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I already said that sounds a lot like the proposed background checks, dumb ass, and we don't have federal gun registration now, you idiot. No reason to add it for individual sales.




You don't understand......moron....

If you mandate background checks on private sales, you will need gun registration.

Why?

Because without registration, you will not know if an actual background check was done before the sale was made.....which is why you are using universal background checks as the fig leaf to get gun registration...

A phone app doesn't require any registration or record keeping other than the criminal and mental health history of actual convicted felons and adjudicated mentally ill....punch in their name, and their record status as a felon comes up....no sale...no record, no registration...which is why you won't support it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You don't understand......moron....
> 
> If you mandate background checks on private sales, you will need gun registration.
> 
> ...


Just STFU  moron.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Just STFU  moron.




I expose you for what you are and what you actually want, and so you lash out.....


----------



## BULLDOG (Aug 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I expose you for what you are and what you actually want, and so you lash out.....


You accusing me of wanting something does not make it so dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 6, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You accusing me of wanting something does not make it so dumb ass.




And you not answering the question, an easy question, shows you don't want people to know what you really think.


----------



## Crepitus (Aug 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hawaii proves gun control laws don't stop criminals....felon, with 10 convictions, living on an island...gets guns easily.​


Oh, well that's sucks.

I guess we'll just hafta confiscate them all then.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 9, 2021)

jillian said:


> And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.
> 
> you’re welcome


Which amendment to the Constitition protects the right to rob?  Take all the time you need.


----------



## colfax_m (Sep 1, 2021)

This story exemplifies why we need a gun registry and mandatory registration. We need to know how these guns went from legal owners to illegal owners.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

colfax_m said:


> This story exemplifies why we need a gun registry and mandatory registration. We need to know how these guns went from legal owners to illegal owners.




Hey...dipshit....he was a felon....he could not legally buy, own or carry a gun.....could not pass a background check.

Do you understand that under the law he would not have to register his illegal gun?

Do you understand that?

Registration would not stop this criminal...it would not stop any criminal...they do not register their illegal guns and, again, they do not have to register their illegal guns....

Do you understand that?

*As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.*





__





						Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





The only reason you want gun registration is to know where the guns are when you get the power to confiscate them.....you don't care about criminals with guns...which is why you and the democrat party keep releasing known, gun felons over and over again...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

colfax_m said:


> This story exemplifies why we need a gun registry and mandatory registration. We need to know how these guns went from legal owners to illegal own



*We need to know how these guns went from legal owners to illegal owners.*


We already know.....criminals steal the guns from homes, cars or gun stores, or they use straw buyers who can pass any background check.

We can already arrest the criminals who can't own, buy or carry guns, and we can already arrest straw buyers who sell guns to criminals.....

Registration doesn't do anything....except allow you to confiscate guns when you get the power to do so...


----------



## colfax_m (Sep 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> *We need to know how these guns went from legal owners to illegal owners.*
> 
> 
> We already know.....criminals steal the guns from homes, cars or gun stores, or they use straw buyers who can pass any background check.
> ...


So every single gun in the possession of a criminal is stolen?

Proof?


----------



## colfax_m (Sep 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Do you understand that under the law he would not have to register his illegal gun?


Of course I don’t expect him to register his gun. But someone would have registered that gun and when it shows up in his house, you go to the last owner and find out who they gave it to.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

colfax_m said:


> So every single gun in the possession of a criminal is stolen?
> 
> Proof?




What part of straw buyer did you not understand?   These individuals can pass any background check, buy guns and sell or give them to criminals...this is already against the law, we don't need to register guns to catch them....we catch them the same way we catch drug dealers....you catch a criminal, and get them to tell you where the illegal gun came from....

No registration necessary since criminals can't buy, own or carry guns in the first place.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

colfax_m said:


> Of course I don’t expect him to register his gun. But someone would have registered that gun and when it shows up in his house, you go to the last owner and find out who they gave it to.




The average street life of a gun?  11 years.........

In Opinion: Gun control—where do criminals get their weapons?

But while a majority of owners obtain their guns in transactions that are documented and for the most part legal, the same is not true for criminals.

A transaction can be illegal for several reasons, but of particular interest are transactions that involve disqualified individuals—those banned from purchase or possession due to criminal record, age, adjudicated mental illness, illegal alien status or some other reason.

Convicted felons, teenagers and other people who are legally barred from possession would ordinarily be blocked from purchasing a gun from a gun store, because they would fail the background check or lack the permit or license required by some states.

Anyone providing the gun in such transactions would be culpable if they had reason to know that the buyer was disqualified, if they were acting as a straw purchaser or if they violated state regulations pertaining to such private transactions.

The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police.

A national survey of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.

*Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtainedthem by direct purchase from a store. *
(This essentially means they did not personally buy the gun...they used a straw buyer who buys the gun legally....)

To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.
*The supply chain of guns to crime*

While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer—including the guns thateventually end up in the hands of criminals.

*That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm.*

If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions.


*The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.*

The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.


----------



## colfax_m (Sep 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> What part of straw buyer did you not understand?   These individuals can pass any background check, buy guns and sell or give them to criminals...this is already against the law, we don't need to register guns to catch them....we catch them the same way we catch drug dealers....you catch a criminal, and get them to tell you where the illegal gun came from....
> 
> No registration necessary since criminals can't buy, own or carry guns in the first place.


Straw purchasing may be against the law but it may as well not be given how difficult it is to prosecute. 

A gun registry makes it far easier to prosecute. That’s the purpose.


----------



## colfax_m (Sep 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The average street life of a gun? 11 years.........


Good article that reinforces my point. Movement of guns from owner to owner needs to be better tracked and that’s the purpose of a registry.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

colfax_m said:


> Straw purchasing may be against the law but it may as well not be given how difficult it is to prosecute.
> 
> A gun registry makes it far easier to prosecute. That’s the purpose.




It isn't difficult to prosecute.......you don't understand the issue...it is very easy to prosecute...they just don't want to......

You pull this out of your ass and think you are making a rational comment...you aren't......

Democrat party prosecutors and judges constantly release straw buyers, under charge them or give them light sentences....

The problem isn't guns...it isn't gun owners......the problem is democrat party prosecutors and judges who keep releasing violent gun felons no matter how many illegal gun convictions they have.....

You just want to confiscate guns...and to do that you need to register them first.

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

*Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.*
*
--------
*
*I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive. *

*In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.*


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

colfax_m said:


> Good article that reinforces my point. Movement of guns from owner to owner needs to be better tracked and that’s the purpose of a registry.




11 years on the street.......you are an idiot........

*Eighty percent of illegal guns recovered in Michigan have been on the street for at least three years. The average time between a firearm being stolen and turning up in a criminal context — what police call the “time to crime” — is a long 13 years.*

Editorial: How to get illegal guns off the streets


You guys don't care about criminals....which is why you don't care how many times actual criminals are released by democrats over and over again......

Catching the straw buyers isn't a problem...you assholes letting them out is the problem...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

colfax_m said:


> Good article that reinforces my point. Movement of guns from owner to owner needs to be better tracked and that’s the purpose of a registry.




You guys don't care about actual criminals......sell that crap to biden voters...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

*The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.*

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

*Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.*
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The 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 ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



*Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. *Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

*Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. *If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

*Registries are expensive*. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

*No gun recovered. *If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even _theoretically_ helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.


Bullet tracking..

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years
Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."

The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Hey...dipshit....he was a felon....he could not legally buy, own or carry a gun.....could not pass a background check.
> 
> Do you understand that under the law he would not have to register his illegal gun?
> 
> ...


Background checks would prevent otherwise honest gun owners from selling to someone who can't legally own a gun. What kind of idiot doesn't think that is a good idea?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Background checks would prevent otherwise honest gun owners from selling to someone who can't legally own a gun. What kind of idiot doesn't think that is a good idea?


 

And having been asked about a background check system that did not involve gun registration....you refused to support it....because you don't actually care about stopping criminals....you want gun registration and  background checks would give you the ability to demand gun registration.......


What kind of idiot supports a political party that keeps releasing known, repeat gun offenders...offenders with long records of gun crime.......you and the democrat keep releasing actual criminals, and then demand that normal gun owners give you gun registration....


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And having been asked about a background check system that did not involve gun registration....you refused to support it....because you don't actually care about stopping criminals....you want gun registration and  background checks would give you the ability to demand gun registration.......
> 
> 
> What kind of idiot supports a political party that keeps releasing known, repeat gun offenders...offenders with long records of gun crime.......you and the democrat keep releasing actual criminals, and then demand that normal gun owners give you gun registration....


I'll take a look at your question about a political party releasing prisoners as soon as I finish looking up why Trump approved releasing 500 taliban prisoners. Many of whom are active in Afghanistan right now.

Just to be clear on your question, though, when did any political party receive authority to release prisoners? Other than presidents, and governors who can release specific prisoners, I thought the judges made those decisions. Many of those judges were appointed by right wingers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

jillian said:


> And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.


You -do- understand the difference here, right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

jillian said:


> I guess that whole “well-regulated militia” thing confuses you


Ah. 
You are ignorant of the fact that the right to keep and bear arms doe snot in any  way depend on a person's relationship with the militia.
How can this be?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> You left out the first part..A well regulated Militia, being necessary


The right of a person to keep and bear arms is not in any way depentent on that person's relationship with the militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> So Heller told us.. This is what the Founders really meant even though they didn't phrase it that way...got it. Imagine the Founders being raised from the dead and having lived in today's America for six months. Wonder what they would say if asked..would you guys like another stab at wording the 2nd??


George Washington would, witout question, want every one of this potential militiamen, and every one of his frontiersmen, to have an AR15 over their transom and 10 loaded 30-rd magazines in their cartridge box.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 1, 2021)

jillian said:


> My “interpretation, little twit, is what every justice until Scalia knew was true.


^^^
This is a lie


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You -do- understand the difference here, right?


Why don't you explain it to the class?


M14 Shooter said:


> The right of a person to keep and bear arms is not in any way depentent on that person's relationship woith the militia.


How does that explain why it's ok to have laws against robbery, even though they aren't 100% effective in stopping robbery, but we can't have reasonable gun control laws unless they are 100% effective in stopping gun crime?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I'll take a look at your question about a political party releasing prisoners as soon as I finish looking up why Trump approved releasing 500 taliban prisoners. Many of whom are active in Afghanistan right now.
> 
> Just to be clear on your question, though, when did any political party receive authority to release prisoners? Other than presidents, and governors who can release specific prisoners, I thought the judges made those decisions. Many of those judges were appointed by right wingers.




Moron.....the democrat party judges and prosecutors are releasing known, violent, repeat gun offenders on bail, and on short sentences all over the country....they are even granting parole to the guy who murdered Robert Kennedy....you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Why don't you explain it to the class?
> 
> How does that explain why it's ok to have laws against robbery, even though they aren't 100% effective in stopping robbery, but we can't have reasonable gun control laws unless they are 100% effective in stopping gun crime?




We have gun control laws.  You want to ban and confiscate guns...and call that reasonable.

The laws that allow us to arrest robbers, also allow us to already arrest criminals in possession of illegal guns.....

We can do that now, with existing laws.  You don't care....you want to ban and confiscate guns.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

Ben Thomson said:


> A lot of things were not created or dependent on the Constitution..FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF..and the SCOTUS has given the government leeway in regulating armaments which is why you don't see people walking around with sub-machine guns or RPGs etc.


The Constitution does indeed give power to create those agencies: 

Article 2, Section 2 - He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

jillian said:


> And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.
> 
> you’re welcome


Let's outlaw religions we don't like, too.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Why don't you explain it to the class?
> 
> How does that explain why it's ok to have laws against robbery, even though they aren't 100% effective in stopping robbery, but we can't have reasonable gun control laws unless they are 100% effective in stopping gun crime?


Because robbery violates citizens' civil liberties and the government is constitutionally bound to protect those liberties 

Gun ownership doesn't harm anyone, nor threaten anyone's rights.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron.....the democrat party judges and prosecutors are releasing known, violent, repeat gun offenders on bail, and on short sentences all over the country....they are even granting parole to the guy who murdered Robert Kennedy....you idiot.


Really? And no republican appointed judges are doing that? You got a credible link showing that, or did you just pull that one out of your ass too?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Because robbery violates citizens' civil liberties and the government is constitutionally bound to protect those liberties
> 
> Gun ownership doesn't harm anyone, nor threaten anyone's rights.


An individual selling a gun to someone not legally allowed to own a gun, without any obligation to even find out does.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> An individual selling a gun to someone not legally allowed to own a gun, without any obligation to even find out does.


That causes harm to no one.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> That causes harm to no one.


Selling a gun to a crook who is not legally allowed to possess a gun harms no one? You know that's just crazy, right?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Selling a gun to a crook who is not legally allowed to possess a gun harms no one? You know that's just crazy, right?


Who's harmed by that?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Who's harmed by that?


Who is harmed by arming someone who can't legally own a gun? That question is too stupid to answer, idiot.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Who is harmed by arming someone who can't legally own a gun? That question is too stupid to answer, idiot.


If it's so obvious, you should be able to show me up by answering it.  Right?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 1, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If it's so obvious, you should be able to show me up by answering it.  Right?


I suppose I could, but if you don't already understand that arming someone who can't legally possess a gun is a threat to the rights of the person to be injured with that gun, you are too stupid to understand my explanation.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I suppose I could, but if you don't already understand that arming someone who can't legally possess a gun is a threat to the rights of the person to be injured with that gun, you are too stupid to understand my explanation.


No it isn't.  A person convicted of crime does not a murderer make.  There are lots of non-violent felonies on the books.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> wow. Now you're saying I want to ban and confiscate guns. You understand that just because you spout that insane bullshit, doesn't make it true, right? Here's a deal for you. You keep making up shit, and claiming that is what I want, and I'll start naming things I believe you want. Deal?
> 
> *2aguy wants everyone to just forget all the doccumented reports of him being arrested for masturbating in the checkout  line at Walmart.*




I just reported you to the U.S.messageboard mods for that post..........


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Selling a gun to a crook who is not legally allowed to possess a gun harms no one? You know that's just crazy, right?




That is already illegal.....and both the seller and the felon can be arrested.

Again.....you won't answer the question....a background check system that does not require gun registration....do you support that?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I suppose I could, but if you don't already understand that arming someone who can't legally possess a gun is a threat to the rights of the person to be injured with that gun, you are too stupid to understand my explanation.




That is already against the law........the individual straw buyer can already be arrested and prosecuted for it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> That is already illegal.....and both the seller and the felon can be arrested.
> 
> Again.....you won't answer the question....a background check system that does not require gun registration....do you support that?


It's only illegal if it can be proven the seller knew the buyer can not legally possess a gun. With our current system, an individual seller is not required to know anything about the buyer, and has no obligation or ability to check their background.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It's only illegal if it can be proven the seller knew the buyer can not legally possess a gun. With our current system, an individual seller is not required to know anything about the buyer, and has no obligation or ability to check their background.




No.....when you have an actual straw buyer, they lie on the federal form for background checks.....you don't need gun registration to get them, you just catch the criminal and they give them up.

Straw buyers are the ones providing guns to gangs and criminals...private sellers are not.......

Again.......do you support a background check system that does not require gun registration?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No.....when you have an actual straw buyer, they lie on the federal form for background checks.....you don't need gun registration to get them, you just catch the criminal and they give them up.
> 
> Straw buyers are the ones providing guns to gangs and criminals...private sellers are not.......
> 
> Again.......do you support a background check system that does not require gun registration?


Again, Explain to me  the difference between an individual seller, and a straw buyer who claims they didn't know the crook wasn't allowed to possess a gun. 


*PLEASE COPY THE FOLLOWING AND RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS DUMB ASS.*
I've answered your dumb question many times. This is the last time, so write it down so you don't forget again. 

Of course I could support a background check system that didn't require gun registration. I have said repeatedly said I would like to expand our current background system checks to include individual sellers. Providing for registration, or not, would by no means be the deciding factor on whether I would support such a law.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Again, Explain to me  the difference between an individual seller, and a straw buyer who claims they didn't know the crook wasn't allowed to possess a gun.
> 
> 
> *PLEASE COPY THE FOLLOWING AND RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS DUMB ASS.*
> ...




Straw buyers are intentionally selling guns to criminals.  Individuals who have guns of their own, privately owned guns, sell them as private citizens.  Straw buyers can pass any background check, buy the gun then sell the gun, knowingly to criminals to make a profit.

We already have all the laws on the books to arrest and imprison straw buyers.

You want universal background checks for a problem that doesn't exist.....people selling their own, private guns ....they are not the suppliers of gangs and criminals.....straw buyers are individual sellers, hence your attempt to lie about who they are.....who buy guns to supply criminals.

Notice....people selling their private guns are not the source of guns for criminals...

These are individual sellers...you idiot..

* A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

Another individual seller....you idiot....

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers.*

*This is already illegal.....*

*Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts. *





__





						frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS
					





					www.pbs.org
				




*Notice....dipstick........none of these sources are individuals selling their shotgun or handgun because they don't want it anymore....or want to take that cash to buy the newest gun on the market......or getting rid of the dead husband's gun collection..........

They are all criminals, engaged in actual criminal activity...*


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Straw buyers are intentionally selling guns to criminals.  Individuals who have guns of their own, privately owned guns, sell them as private citizens.  Straw buyers can pass any background check, buy the gun then sell the gun, knowingly to criminals to make a profit.
> 
> We already have all the laws on the books to arrest and imprison straw buyers.
> 
> ...


So from the law enforcer's point of view, what is the difference between what you insist on calling a straw buyer who says he didn't know the crook wasn't allowed to possess a gun, and an individual seller? Either way, you have to prove they did know, but there is no obligation for them to know either way.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So from the law enforcer's point of view, what is the difference between what you insist on calling a straw buyer who says he didn't know the crook wasn't allowed to possess a gun, and an individual seller? Either way, you have to prove they did know, but there is no obligation for them to know either way.




Volume.   A guy who wants to unload one of his guns is selling it one time...the straw buyers are making money selling to criminals...as the article points out.  you want to use the lie of individual buyers.....guys who sell a random pistol, rifle or shotgun, as an excuse to get universal background checks....so you can get gun registration.

We can already arrest the felon who can't buy the gun in the first place, who will then give up the seller, and we can arrest the seller who is supplying guns to criminals.....

We don't need what you want....


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> criminals owning guns in Honolulu. As previously noted, you can’t get there without going through some kind of security, either via ship or plane


How are all those drugs, not only Marijuana but opium, tar heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth, LSD, angel dust, magic mushrooms, peyote, etc., etc. trafficked in and out of Hawaii through all that security if the cops are grabbing all the guns from clean and sober folks?

Maybe you just aren't rich enough to own a boat or a plane. Maybe a float plane, take off and land off-shore a bit of in a protected cove or bay?


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So from the law enforcer's point of view, what is the difference between what you insist on calling a straw buyer who says he didn't know the crook wasn't allowed to possess a gun, and an individual seller? Either way, you have to prove they did know, but there is no obligation for them to know either way.


What's a straw buyer? Some people buy straw bales from farms and build homes out of them. Or else there are drinking straws on aisle 9 in the grocery store. That's right, it's ATF. Alcohol always comes first and guns are banned for sober people.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Volume.   A guy who wants to unload one of his guns is selling it one time...the straw buyers are making money selling to criminals...as the article points out.  you want to use the lie of individual buyers.....guys who sell a random pistol, rifle or shotgun, as an excuse to get universal background checks....so you can get gun registration.
> 
> We can already arrest the felon who can't buy the gun in the first place, who will then give up the seller, and we can arrest the seller who is supplying guns to criminals.....
> 
> We don't need what you want....


So how are you going to determine volume. All you got is the hope that a bad guy will turn in who ever sold him the gun. You know how pathetic that sounds?


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 2, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> What's a straw buyer? Some people buy straw bales from farms and build homes out of them. Or else there are drinking straws on aisle 9 in the grocery store. That's right, it's ATF. Alcohol always comes first and guns are banned for sober people.


I'm sorry. I'm so used to hearing that term from gun nuts till I just assumed you all used it. From my understanding, it's someone who sells a gun to someone who can't legally possess one. Effectively, exactly the same as an individual gun seller.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm sorry. I'm so used to hearing that term from gun nuts till I just assumed you all used it. From my understanding, it's someone who sells a gun to someone who can't legally possess one. Effectively, exactly the same as an individual gun seller.


Anyone with two eyes intelligent enough to walk into a store or offer a wad of cash to a buddy and count change may legally buy a gun by the Second Amendment.

Do you need a receipt to take the gun back to the store if it doesn't perform to your expectations? Have it repaired somewhere? Is there a lifetime warranty on it? No! All sales final and the damn life-ruining feebie cops just want to put you in prison no matter what. Circulate "armed-and-dangerous" all-points be-on-the-look-out posters when you haven't done anything wrong and there isn't even a warrant out for you.


----------



## BULLDOG (Sep 2, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> Anyone with two eyes intelligent enough to walk into a store or offer a wad of cash to a buddy and count change may legally buy a gun by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Do you need a receipt to take the gun back to the store if it doesn't perform to your expectations? Have it repaired somewhere? Is there a lifetime warranty on it? No! All sales final and the damn life-ruining feebie cops just want to put you in prison no matter what. Circulate "armed-and-dangerous" all-points be-on-the-look-out posters when you haven't done anything wrong and there isn't even a warrant out for you.


wow. You're childish and nuts, aren't you?


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> wow. You're childish and nuts, aren't you?


No. And I'm not stupid either.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So how are you going to determine volume. All you got is the hope that a bad guy will turn in who ever sold him the gun. You know how pathetic that sounds?




Just like you hope the arrested drug dealer will turn in his source as well.......you use the same methods...no need for gun registration to do that...we can already arrest all the particpants.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Sep 3, 2021)

The gun control freaks think that by banning firearms, there will no longer be mass killings and the Marxists just want them out of the public's hands so that they can implement a one-political party authoritarian government, able to implement any draconian laws they like.
CHINA:  29 dead and 130 injured when a small group of men went on a killing spree with knives.
               7 killed and seven injured in knife attack by one person.
JAPAN:   19 dead and 25 injured by a mentally-deranged man with a knife.
                8 dead and 15 injured by a mentally-deranged man with a knife.
INDIA:    22 dead via melee weapon (knife, hammer, club, et cetera) by an unknown soldier.
              10 dead via melee weapon by an unknown attacker.
VIETNAM:  11 dead and 6 injured by a mentally-deranged man with an melee weapon.
All it ever takes is someone with a serious intention to kill a lot of people and a sharp implement, hammer, tire-iron, screwdriver, et cetera to do it with.
Oh, then of course there's the United States.  Eight-times more people are murdered by knives than by rifles.


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Just like you hope the arrested drug dealer will turn in his source as well.......you use the same methods...no need for gun registration to do that...we can already arrest all the particpants.


I'd be more interested in airplane or boat registration if I were a LEO looking for wholesale drug dealers or suppliers.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm sorry. I'm so used to hearing that term from gun nuts till I just assumed you all used it. From my understanding, it's someone who sells a gun to someone who can't legally possess one. Effectively, exactly the same as an individual gun seller.


No a straw buyer is effectively the same as an unlicensed gun dealer, not a private seller.


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 25, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> No a straw buyer is effectively the same as an unlicensed gun dealer, not a private seller.


What do you think a private seller is? He sells guns, yet he doesn't have a license to sell guns. Of course, he has no obligation to find out, or even care if his purchaser can legally own guns. If they have the money, he can sell the gun. His only concern is if it can be proven that he knew beforehand that the purchaser wasn't allowed to have guns. That is often very hard to prove, even if it is a relative.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What do you think a private seller is? He sells guns, yet he doesn't have a license to sell guns. Of course, he has no obligation to find out, or even care if his purchaser can legally own guns. If they have the money, he can sell the gun. His only concern is if it can be proven that he knew beforehand that the purchaser wasn't allowed to have guns. That is often very hard to prove, even if it is a relative.


No, a private seller is someone who sells one or two of his own guns that are surplus to his needs.  NOT someone who goes out and buys guns to sell them. If a person is buying guns either from a retailer or a manufacturer to resell, he is legally a dealer and needs a Federal and sometimes State or Local license. I was a private seller when I travelled from California to Nevada to sell my AR15 to a dealer a couple of decades ago after selling them was banned in California.  If I had bought an AR15 from that dealer and then sold it to someone in California I would have been a straw buyer.  See the difference?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What do you think a private seller is? He sells guns, yet he doesn't have a license to sell guns. Of course, he has no obligation to find out, or even care if his purchaser can legally own guns. If they have the money, he can sell the gun. His only concern is if it can be proven that he knew beforehand that the purchaser wasn't allowed to have guns. That is often very hard to prove, even if it is a relative.


Here is the legal definition of a firearms dealer:
"According to 18 USCS § 921(11) firearms dealer means “(A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker.”"


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 25, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> No, a private seller is someone who sells one or two of his own guns that are surplus to his needs.  NOT someone who goes out and buys guns to sell them. If a person is buying guns either from a retailer or a manufacturer to resell, he is legally a dealer and needs a Federal and sometimes State or Local license. I was a private seller when I travelled from California to Nevada to sell my AR15 to a dealer a couple of decades ago after selling them was banned in California.  If I had bought an AR15 from that dealer and then sold it to someone in California I would have been a straw buyer.  See the difference?


Only if the gun being sold is otherwise illegal to be sold.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What do you think a private seller is? He sells guns, yet he doesn't have a license to sell guns. Of course, he has no obligation to find out, or even care if his purchaser can legally own guns. If they have the money, he can sell the gun. His only concern is if it can be proven that he knew beforehand that the purchaser wasn't allowed to have guns. That is often very hard to prove, even if it is a relative.




Wrong....this is, of course, a lie.......you are lying when you imply that it is normal people selling their private guns that are supplying criminals with guns.....you know this is a lie.....

Straw Buyers, the ones supplying criminals with illegal guns...are doing it with full knowledge that they are buying guns specifically to supply criminals.....

We already have laws that make this illegal, we can already arrest people for doing this......


The problem?

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive. In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review
======

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review
===========

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago today charged an Indiana man with federal firearm violations for allegedly conspiring to straw purchase a semi-automatic handgun that the charges allege was used to shoot two Chicago Police officers last weekend, including the fatal wounding of Officer Ella French.
JAMEL DANZY purchased the firearm at a federal firearms dealer in Hammond, Ind., on March 18, 2021, and falsely certified on the required forms that he was the actual buyer, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago.  In reality, Danzy was a straw purchaser who bought the gun at the request of someone whom Danzy knew resided in Chicago, Ill., and was not lawfully allowed to purchase a firearm due to a felony criminal conviction, the complaint states.  Danzy gave the firearm to the Illinois resident shortly after the purchase, the complaint states.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/indiana-man-charged-scheming-straw-purchase-firearm-allegedly-used-shoot-two-chicago


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 25, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> No, a private seller is someone who sells one or two of his own guns that are surplus to his needs.  NOT someone who goes out and buys guns to sell them. If a person is buying guns either from a retailer or a manufacturer to resell, he is legally a dealer and needs a Federal and sometimes State or Local license. I was a private seller when I travelled from California to Nevada to sell my AR15 to a dealer a couple of decades ago after selling them was banned in California.  If I had bought an AR15 from that dealer and then sold it to someone in California I would have been a straw buyer.  See the difference?




Bulldog knows this.......they are trolling, and lying about this........


----------



## Rigby5 (Apr 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Only if the gun being sold is otherwise illegal to be sold.



No  a "straw purchase" does not have to be to a person who can not legally own firearms or a gun that is illegal in any other way.

The idea is that if you are buying and selling guns to make a profit, you are supposed to have an FFL.
If you are selling guns because you like trying different guns out, and are selling them at cost, then you are not doing anything illegal and do not need an FFL as long as you do not sell more than 3 to 5 guns a year.
The range is because the BATF acts capriciously sometimes, so there is no exact number.
The reason they can not arrest you for selling to a felon is that they do not allow you to check, so it is their fault, not yours.  Of course that does not apply if the felon is famous and you should have known he was a felon.
But personally I think it is illegal for the BATF to prevent felons from being able to buy and own firearms.
It is beyond their authority.

A more complex wrinkle are pawn shops and people selling older "curios and relics".
The are also immune from the need for a license.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Apr 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Only if the gun being sold is otherwise illegal to be sold.


Read the law.  If you are selling guns to make a profit,you are a dealer and need a license.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Apr 26, 2022)

2aguy your ailment with guns is streets ahead of a rabid mouth frothing Trump Derangement Syndrome Democrat. I thought they were crazy but you are off your fucking welt.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 26, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> No a straw buyer is effectively the same as an unlicensed gun dealer, not a private seller.


A straw byyer is someone who conspires with a prohibited person to purchase a gun and make it available to said prohibited person.
Part of this requires the prohibited person to secure payment for the gun.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> A straw byyer is someone who conspires with a prohibited person to purchase a gun and make it available to said prohibited person.
> Part of this requires the prohibited person to secure payment for the gun.



That's how Kyle Rittenhouse got his gun that he used to "protect" himself from people he put himself near so he could be in danger so he could shoot some people and get off.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's how Kyle Rittenhouse got his gun that he used to "protect" himself from people he put himself near so he could be in danger so he could shoot some people and get off.


5x Not Guilty.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 27, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 5x Not Guilty.



Sure, not guilty.  I agree.  The court found him not guilty.

The court also found OJ not guilty.

Cool.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> Sure, not guilty.  I agree.  The court found him not guilty.


Then you understand your claim...
"...to "protect" himself from people he put himself near so he could be in danger so he could shoot some people and get off."
... is ignorant, bigoted nonsense.
Good to know.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's how Kyle Rittenhouse got his gun that he used to "protect" himself from people he put himself near so he could be in danger so he could shoot some people and get off.




Nope......that isn't a straw purchase...but thanks for playing.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> That's how Kyle Rittenhouse got his gun that he used to "protect" himself from people he put himself near so he could be in danger so he could shoot some people and get off.




You guys sure do love you some child molesting blm/antifa rioters........you know, the democrat party brown shirts who burned, looted and murdered for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods.........then they attacked the wrong guy.......and you complain about that guy saving himself from the child molesting, democrat party brown shirts...


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope......that isn't a straw purchase...but thanks for playing.











						Man who bought gun for Kyle Rittenhouse to pay $2,000 in deal
					

Dominick Black, 20, of Racine, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18.




					www.wisn.com
				




The straw purchaser got a plea deal for a lesser charge in exchange for testifying against Rittenhouse.

"Prosecutors said he bought the gun for Rittenhouse knowing Rittenhouse could not legally buy it for himself.

Black was 18 at the time of the purchase.

Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and injured Gaige Grosskreutz.

According to a criminal complaint, Black bought a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle on May 1, 2020, at Ladysmith Ace Home Center in Ladysmith, Wisconsin.

Black was one of the prosecution's star witnesses in Rittenhouse's trial in November.

He agreed to testify against Rittenhouse.

In exchange for his testimony, prosecutors delayed his case and offered a plea deal last week.

Black agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation."

Otherwise it sounds EXACTLY like the definition of a straw purchase.​


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You guys sure do love you some child molesting blm/antifa rioters........you know, the democrat party brown shirts who burned, looted and murdered for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods.........then they attacked the wrong guy.......and you complain about that guy saving himself from the child molesting, democrat party brown shirts...



And you guys sure do have some serious fear of the black people don't you?


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> Man who bought gun for Kyle Rittenhouse to pay $2,000 in deal
> 
> 
> Dominick Black, 20, of Racine, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18.
> ...




The judge threw it out at trial, the guy didn't have to make the deal......too bad he didn't know it was going to be thrown out....

No, he wasn't a star witness.....are you an idiot.....?

No....a straw purchase is made by someone knowing that they are going to provide a criminal with a gun....Rittenhouse was not a criminal and could legally own the weapon........

He shot and killed blm/antifa brown shirts of the democrat party who violently attacked him while they were burning, looting, and then trying to murder kyle...


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> And you guys sure do have some serious fear of the black people don't you?




How do you get that out of that post?

It was the democrat party brown shirts, blm/antifa, burning, looting and killing blacks, in black neighborhoods.....while the white guys who attacked Kyle were burning and looting that minority neighborhood....

The democrats and their brown shirts, blm/antifa.....burn, loot and kill in black neighborhoods, and you throw the race card at me?

Do you understand how stupid that is?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No, he wasn't a star witness.....are you an idiot.....?



I didn't call him a "star witness".



2aguy said:


> No....a straw purchase is made by someone knowing that they are going to provide a criminal with a gun....Rittenhouse was not a criminal and could legally own the weapon........



And an 18 year old buying one for a 17 year old doesn't count for you?



2aguy said:


> He shot and killed blm/antifa brown shirts of the democrat party who violently attacked him while they were burning, looting, and then trying to murder kyle...



"Brown shirt".  You've godwinned the thread.  Good job.  /thread.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> I didn't call him a "star witness".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Shit head.....

From your post #155 before you edit it out...

*Black was one of the prosecution's star witnesses in Rittenhouse's trial in November.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Shit head.....
> 
> From your post #155 before you edit it out...
> 
> *Black was one of the prosecution's star witnesses in Rittenhouse's trial in November.*



I DIDN"T WRITE THAT DIMBULB.

I don't write the headlines for the articles.

Jeez you are dumb.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> Man who bought gun for Kyle Rittenhouse to pay $2,000 in deal
> 
> 
> Dominick Black, 20, of Racine, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18.
> ...




Here......






Man who bought gun for Kyle Rittenhouse to pay $2,000 in deal​Dominick Black, 20, of Racine, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18.



www.wisn.com
The straw purchaser got a plea deal for a lesser charge in exchange for testifying against Rittenhouse.

"Prosecutors said he bought the gun for Rittenhouse knowing Rittenhouse could not legally buy it for himself.

Black was 18 at the time of the purchase.

Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and injured Gaige Grosskreutz.

According to a criminal complaint, Black bought a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 rifle on May 1, 2020, at Ladysmith Ace Home Center in Ladysmith, Wisconsin.

*Black was one of the prosecution's star witnesses in Rittenhouse's trial in November.*

He agreed to testify against Rittenhouse.

In exchange for his testimony, prosecutors delayed his case and offered a plea deal last week.

Black agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation."

Otherwise it sounds EXACTLY like the definition of a straw purchase.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 27, 2022)

PV System said:


> I DIDN"T WRITE THAT DIMBULB.
> 
> I don't write the headlines for the articles.
> 
> Jeez you are dumb.




You quoted it, moron....without showing it was a quote....you idiot.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Here......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



THAT' IN THE QUOTED SECTION you dumbass.  I DIDN'T WRITE IT.

Can't you read?  

DO you see the quote marks????

Wow.  Dumbass says dumb things.

Read.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You quoted it, moron....without showing it was a quote....you idiot.



*I DIDN'T CALL HIM THAT you fuckwit.*

Are you really this stupid?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 28, 2022)

PV System said:


> Man who bought gun for Kyle Rittenhouse to pay $2,000 in deal
> 
> 
> Dominick Black, 20, of Racine, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18.
> ...


And....?
5x Not Guilty.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And....?
> 5x Not Guilty.



Just sayin'...straw purchase is a straw purchase.  Buying a gun and giving it to a 17 year old is pretty much a violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law.

OJ isn't guilty either.

The justice system is perfect.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 28, 2022)

PV System said:


> Just sayin'...straw purchase is a straw purchase.  Buying a gun and giving it to a 17 year old is pretty much a violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law


And no one one went to jail.
Must be the not guilty verdicts.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And no one one went to jail.
> Must be the not guilty verdicts.



OJ was not guilty.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 28, 2022)

PV System said:


> Sure, not guilty.  I agree.  The court found him not guilty.


Then you understand your claim...
"...to "protect" himself from people he put himself near so he could be in danger so he could shoot some people and get off."
... is ignorant, bigoted nonsense.
Good to know.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 28, 2022)

PV System said:


> Just sayin'...straw purchase is a straw purchase.  Buying a gun and giving it to a 17 year old is pretty much a violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law.
> 
> OJ isn't guilty either.
> 
> The justice system is perfect.




No....a straw purchase is for someone who can't own the gun.....as the Judge stated in his opinion throwing out that charge.


----------



## Pete7469 (May 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wow...you are still dumb.
> 
> Idiots like you pass more and more laws which the criminals ignore....but those laws do what you intend...they make owning and carrying a gun more dangerous, legally, for law abiding gun owners.  You increase the legal red tape and peril for normal people...while doing nothing to stop criminals....you goal is to take guns, not to stop criminals....since your political party, the democrat party, keeps releasing violent, known, repeat gun offenders.
> 
> ...


*Jilly is a brain dead posting bot.*
*
MURDER is illegal, regardless if you beat someone to death with bare hands, a hammer or high speed projectiles. CRIMINALS give no fucks, they're out there stealing fucks and oxygen.
*
*Turds like Jilly do not have a frontal lobe and cannot process this simple information.

*


----------

