# Honest and open debate on gun control



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.  
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 23, 2015)

I can't wait to see if there are any takers.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.



Remove violent criminals from society immediately and permanently. (1) & (2)
Place the mentally ill in asylums for their own good, and that of society. (1) & (2)
Leave everyone else alone. (2)


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.



1. Issue free equipment for every citizen, except those who seems unfit, physically or mentally. (Also those citizens deemed fit will be a reserve military force - to be used as national guard and already conscripted in case of need)

2. Non issue.

Slight edit: when issued equipment, sufficient education is provided.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

ErikViking said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...


How does this prevent criminals from getting guns?


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ErikViking said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Criminals doesn't show the mental ability to be armed. Hence, license (and plight) removed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

ErikViking said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ErikViking said:
> ...


And how does THAT prevent criminals from getting guns?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds.  Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street.  After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons. 

Crack down on the manufacturers.  Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war.  Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.










I would love to see a national check system that did a background check on anyone who you wanted to do a check on.  No gun registration at all, just a background check that everyone could access for no cost.  You're having a garage sale and you're selling a gun, someone wants to buy it, you call the phone number, they do the background check.  Done.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> I would love to see a national check system that did a background check on anyone who you wanted to do a check on.  No gun registration at all, just a background check that everyone could access for no cost.  You're having a garage sale and you're selling a gun, someone wants to buy it, you call the phone number, they do the background check.  Done.


Anyone who really wants to do this can do it now, at a gun store.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> 
> The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds.  Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street.  After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons.
> 
> Crack down on the manufacturers.  Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war.  Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.









Bans have been shown to not work.  Machineguns are illegal in Mexico yet they are everywhere.  Bans only affect the law abiding as has been shown over and over and over.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see a national check system that did a background check on anyone who you wanted to do a check on.  No gun registration at all, just a background check that everyone could access for no cost.  You're having a garage sale and you're selling a gun, someone wants to buy it, you call the phone number, they do the background check.  Done.
> ...








If I'm at a garage sale I am not going to take the time to go to a gun store.  Furthermore at the gun store there is a fee to do the background check.  That is ridiculous.  If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals you need access to the data base 24/7 and not when the gun stores happen to be open.  Furthermore, adding a charge to the check reduces the number of people who will avail themselves of the service.  A service that the People of the US have paid for many times over BTW.


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 23, 2015)

They will not be issued equipment? Any equipment issued will be taken back if the condition of mental stability isn't met.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> ...


Bans on firearms commonly used for any of the traditionally lawful uses of a firearm (that is, virtually all of them) infringe on the rights of the law abiding and violate the 2nd amendment.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...









I agree.  That's why I am not in favor of bans.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with the voluntary nature of the idea or that it is a bad Idea in general, I'm just pointing out that this capacity more or less already exists.


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ErikViking said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Somehow missed to make a correct answer, board-wise!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

ErikViking said:


> They will not be issued equipment? Any equipment issued will be taken back if the condition of mental stability isn't met.


And this prevents a criminal from illegally buying or stealing a gun?


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jun 23, 2015)

If there was an armed Church member in the Church, the demon with the gun would have been 
terminated. Guns don't kill people kill.
End of story, over and out.
Thank you. And God bless you all.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> ...


Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ErikViking said:
> 
> 
> > They will not be issued equipment? Any equipment issued will be taken back if the condition of mental stability isn't met.
> ...



Maybe, it will be decided by society's will to pursue and prevent, just like drugs, speeding or any other breaking of the law. 

Any black market enterprise would also suffer from the fact that people are provided (for free?) what they need if they are seemed fit.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Such weapons belong in 'well regulated militias', not on the streets of America.  Law abiding citizens can still hold as many sporting weapons as they please.  But weapons designed exclusively for slaughtering as many humans as possible are anathema to the purposes of the constitution.  The constitution is not a suicide pact.  It was written when weapons wear muzzle loaded, not from automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines..


----------



## 52ndStreet (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



There should be no infringement on 2nd amendment rights. Fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns
must be made available to all citizens to prevent tyrannical governments and to defend against foreign and domestics groups bent on destroying the American government. There must not be any outright bans.
We must be aware terrorist are already armed with fully automatic AK47 assault rifles.
Americans must also be equally armed to deal with that situation.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...









Mexico is far poorer than the US so your "model" fails in every respect.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

52ndStreet said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Okay, Rambo.  Let's imagine your rebellion.  The 4th armored division is about to sack your house.  Is your AK 47 doing you any good?  And is that good more beneficial than keeping that AK 47 out of the hands of the next manic who wanders into an elementary school?


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...








But it really doesn't.  People hate paying taxes for anything and the background check fee is basically that.  Further, as we both know, criminals DON'T buy guns at gun stores!  They buy them from garage sales or flea markets etc.  These are the locations where we need to have an ability to do an immediate background check on the person buying the gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And gun crime there is exceptionally high, indicating that bans, actual and virtual, do not prevent criminals from getting guns.
The idea therefore fails.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









By definition I am a member of a well regulated militia.  So is anyone who is between the ages of 18 and 65.  That is Constitutional as well as logical.  Your argument is specious at best.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I have no real issue with a voluntary system; of course.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...









Yes, it will.  You seem to ignore the Rumanian experience where the revolution was begun with .22 long rifle target pistols.  Had they had access to better weapons the death toll for the revolutionaries would have been much less.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Its also an irrelevant point, as The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...









That's what I said, you are responding to the wrong post.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...










Wrong.  The Constitution guarantees us the same weaponry as the military so that when our government becomes illegitimate we have the means to remove it.  That is the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  Sporting purpose was secondary.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Define the 'well regulated' part.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...


So we should accept carnage to placate your rebellion which will never happen.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I see you were responding to an anti-gun loon that I have on ignore, so all I saw was your post.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...








If you truly want to stop the carnage you should decriminalize drugs.  Send violent illegal immigrants back home (they are responsible for 80% of the violent crime in the US) and when someone uses a gun to commit a crime they get sent to prison forever.  That will do more to reduce violence than any stupid gun ban ever could.  

Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and they also have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world.


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Now, _that_ poses a problem for my argument. I'll excuse myself by not knowing the 2nd amendment in detail.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

ErikViking said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No worries.  Thank you for your input.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Okay, Rambo.  Let's imagine your rebellion.  The 4th armored division is about to sack your house.



In this time, the 4th Armored Division may well join the rebellion.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


...and here I thought this was supposed to be "an open and honest debate"

The gun lovers have NO SOLUTIONS AT ALL.  Any and all solutions proffered are rejected without consideration.

Gun nuts would prefer slaughter to debate.  The gun culture and ancillary blood lust knows no bounds.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 23, 2015)

Reintroduce the draft!

All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.

Training will include both firearms and psychological evaluations.

Follow up training of 2 weeks every 2nd year for the next 30 years.

Gun sales will be dependent upon producing certificates of course completion.

Anyone failing either firearms or psychological evals will have to apply through the courts for an exemption if they want to obtain a firearm.

In essence this is similar to the Swiss system that works so well.

Only those who are either incompetent with firearms or who are identified as being mentally unstable will have any problem obtaining firearms.

Everyone else will be fully trained in how to use them properly.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...









Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.  Your solution is to ban everything.  Feel free to show us any place on Earth where a ban has worked.  The worst mass murder with a firearm was in Norway where guns are heavily regulated so your argument holds no water.

If you have a legitimate point to make then by all means do so, but to just say "gun bans are good and you are all wrong" when the evidence clearly shows you to be wrong, merely shows that you truly HAVE NO INTEREST in a honest debate.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Reintroduce the draft!
> 
> All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.
> 
> ...









There is merit to this.  Do those who have done so get to take their fully automatic weapons home with them like the Swiss do?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Jun 23, 2015)

To me, people will find a way to get their hands on whatever it is that they want if they want it badly enough, so to me, the only thing left to do is to just have harsher sentences be out there for those who don't care about what the laws are.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.


It also does not include people that can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

So far, I have yet to see any suggestion that meets the criteria laid out on the OP.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
> ...






Mine does.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...








Define "Well Regulated".


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Honest and open does not include off topic trolling responses such as you made.
> ...


The criteria of the OP was "an open and honest debate".

you are not open nor honest.  You offer no solutions at all.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I've already asked that question without response.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 23, 2015)

Did making drugs illegal make America drug free or did Prohibition keep alcohol out of people's hands (and mouths)? The only thing gun bans do is keep guns from law abiding citizens


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...








I *know* what the Founders defined it as, I want to hear what you think it means.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Only partially, as it is voluntary.
It certainly does not prevent criminals from buying guns from people who won't run a check, or stealing guns or whatever.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


An organized group under the scrutiny of government.  Not a bunch of your beer buddies cruising around in a Dodge Durango.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...










That is true, however MOST gun owners who are selling their guns don't want them to go to a criminal.  This won't have an effect on straw man purchases, or outright theft, but it will eliminate one avenue that they currently have.  You and I both know that no single system is going to work.  Nothing will prevent someone who truly wants a gun to get it.  We are merely dealing with the average run of the mill criminal.  Those we can intercept.

This is one way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyone rights, and does not generate a national gun registry.

Capisce?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Like I said -- I have no issue with people voluntary running background checks on a private sale - I only stated that there is some capacity to do this already.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...






So in other words, ONLY GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED SOLDIERS.  Got it.  That's what the 2nd was designed to protect us from.  Your argument fails on historical, AND legal grounds.

Try again.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...







No, there isn't.  That's the whole point I'm making.  Criminals WON'T go to a gun store to do a background check.  Here I am giving you a method to do what you say and you're resisting it.  Why?  Now it's you who are being disingenuous.

Further, I would have no problem with the background check being mandatory, so long as it was free and no gun registration was included.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


This means you didn't sell the gun to the crimnal, right?  Success!  


> Here I am giving you a method to do what you say and you're resisting it.  Why?


I did not disagree with your idea.


> Further, I would have no problem with the background check being mandatory, so long as it was free and no gun registration was included.


The only way the requirement for universal background checks can be enforced is thru universal registration.
Further, even with universal checks, criminals will still get guns.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...









Untrue.  There is NO REASON for gun registration to be a part of any background check legislation.  None.  Government has no right knowing what we have.  I do wish to *USE* the government to tell me who is legally allowed to purchase a firearm however.

See the difference?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Universal registration is the only way the government can prove that a privately-sold gun was sold at a time when the background check was supposed to take place -- that is, the only way the government can enforce the law.  If the government cannot enforce the law, then the law is useless and the restriction it places on the right to arms cannot stand up to any level of scrutiny.


> Government has no right knowing what we have


Of course -- gun registration clearly violates the constitution.


> I do wish to *USE* the government to tell me who is legally allowed to purchase a firearm however.


Of course.  Maybe post names on the internet.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course -- gun registration clearly violates the constitution.



Only it doesn't!

The founding fathers passed gun registration shortly after the nation was established.

But there doesn't need to be any gun registration if you reintroduce the draft.

Then you have everyone registered and you have their fingerprints and DNA on file. You can do mental evaluations and have them repeated every 2 years.

The draft will eliminate many of the firearm accidents since there will be a consistent level of training nationwide.

The draft will also provide a recruiting tool for the military and other agencies.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.


ok...

How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns.  Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars.  Make Jails profitable again.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...










Posting the names on a national data base is a GOOD idea.  I would love to see that.  As far as your assertion that registration is the only way to trace the firearm, that is not true, but it does make it more difficult.  Doesn't matter though, possession of firearms is not a crime, the criminal MISUSE of them is.  Punish that in the most severe way possible to remove the violent offenders from the population and you reduce violent crime by a ton.  

That and legalizing drugs will help the most.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


If everyone with a gun is constitutionally considered a "well regulated militia", aren't the Crips, Bloods and the Hell's Angels also "well regulated militias"?


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Of course -- gun registration clearly violates the constitution.
> ...








It won't eliminate them.  The NRA's Eddie Eagle has done more to reduce negligent discharges than almost any other program out there.  I can't keep track of the number of police officer negligent discharges I have seen or heard about.  One of the most egregious was by a CA DOJ agent who was also their firearms "expert".  He had two negligent discharges that I know about.  One was with a pistol, the other was when he fired a round off from his AR-15 and almost killed a friend of mine who was also on the DOJ team.  He managed to do this in the San Francisco office.

'Tard.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



The term "well regulated" implies regulations which is what gun registration would be in effect. 

Regulating the militia means having a record of both the firearms and those who possess them.

Even the Heller decision conceded that there was nothing unconstitutional about registering guns.

But having a fingerprint and DNA registration of every citizen is not unconstitutional either. Given the advances in forensics identifying people by their DNA is a relatively simple and quick way to determine who the suspects would be in ALL criminal acts.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...


I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



If the criminals are the problem and not the guns then having a DNA and fingerprint registration of everyone in the nation will enable law enforcement to quickly identify who the criminals are and bring them to trail.

That just leaves the problem with guns getting into the hands to the mentally unstable.

The draft that I suggested would help to identify those candidates.

What is your solution for them?


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...









No, but they are considered to be in the unorganized militia.  Of course if you really wanted to stop violent crime you would put every one of those gang members in prison and throw away the key.  But we both know you would never dare do that.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...








How Orwellian of you.  Records get messed with all the time so that won't work either.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure.  But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend.  We already lead the world in incarceration.  And mass shooting.  Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,


----------



## Truth2Know (Jun 23, 2015)

There is no gun control measure that will prevent criminals from getting guns. Just like there is no way to prevent drunk and drugged people from getting behind the steering wheel of a car.

The best that can be done is to take care of the improper use of firearms after the fact. If convicted of committing a crime while in possession of a firearm, whether or not it is fired, the criminal is executed. By firing squad. This will at least weed out the repeat offenders and those stupid enough to tote a gun while engaging in criminal activity.

While we're at it, may as well make execution the penalty for accidents caused by drunk/drugged drivers, too.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


What other criminals?  My point was if you are a violent criminal that should not have access to guns.. then don't let em out.  If they are a violent criminal that has done his time and deserves access to guns again.... then let them out.  If you let a violent criminal out that you don't want to have access to guns... there is no way to stop them from getting access to guns.  It's impossible.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


We lead the world in incarceration because of the war on drugs.  End that.

As for mass shootings... those are caused by liberal laws that forbid us from defending ourselves.  End those.

You ignored my point about putting criminals to work in jails.  Jails should be self sustaining.  Tax payers should not be footing the bill for criminals, the criminals should pay their own damn bills.  If they can't work hard enough to fund their bills... let em starve to death or get money from a chairity or family members.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...








No, the evidence says the opposite.  They are not "normal" people.  They are almost all on some type of psychotropic drug or have been in some form of mental therapy, they have had run ins with the law in many cases, Klebold for instance had a felony arrest hanging over his head, in other words there should have been a way to keep these people under control but the government failed to do so.

As far as the huge number of locked up criminals, I agree with you that the majority should be released.  The only people who should be in prison are violent offenders.  Those who are non violent should be in work camps working off their sentences.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The state sentences criminals, and incarcerates them.  They are literally in the custody of the state.

Ignoring the, is not a value any American state should embrace.  And the only state that comes to mind that intentionally staved those who they hold in prison is Nazi Germany.  Do you want to hold them as your paradigm of statecraft?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


And yet, background checks are seen as an infringement.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...







You're forgetting the Soviet gulags, and Mao's wonderful resorts.  Basically it is the progressive countries of the world that have murdered the most people.  Usually by starvation.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...








Only by some.  Most want them, we just don't want gun registration to be part of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Non-violent felons - it is illegal for them to have guns, too.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are not examples of "Progressive" countries.  They are Authoritarian regimes.  

Swing and a miss.  Conservatives are such poor students.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Because registration leads to confiscation?  Ridiculous!  The ballistic fingerprint of each gun should be registered along with each serial number.  We deserve to know whose guns are committing crimes.

You register your car.  You register your boat.  And yet no one has come knocking at your door to take them away unless you fail to make the payments.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Okay, Rambo.  Let's imagine your rebellion.  The 4th armored division is about to sack your house.  Is your AK 47 doing you any good?  And is that good more beneficial than keeping that AK 47 out of the hands of the next manic who wanders into an elementary school?



Check the Posse Comitatus Act.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...










Oh, they most certainly are.  The leaders of the progressive movement of the 1920's and 30's were famous for extolling the virtues of the fascist regimes.  This is all well known history.  What is also well known is that before the oppression, and the terror could begin, the people had to be disarmed.

Funny how that works.

Progressives are even poorer students.




H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
_McClure’s Magazine_ founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
_New Republic_ editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...







Yes, it does.  Tell me a single registration scheme that hasn't ended in outright confiscation.  Just one.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


All said during the greatest economic calamity since the Dark Ages.  A calamity that resulted from unchecked, unfettered Capitalism run amok.


----------



## westwall (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...









The Soviet Union was unfettered capitalism run amuck?  Even if that were true, how do you justify the murder of 60 million PEASANTS?  They weren't capitalists, they WERE
the ones being oppressed.  Luuuucy, you've got some esplainin to doooo.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 24, 2015)

Nine pages in and not a single suggestion that would have any impact at all.  Shocker.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.



Gun control wont fix gun violence any more than car control would fix drunk driving. The problem isn't the gun (or the car,) but the operator of the gun and the car.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


So you are saying criminals are so damn worthless they can't earn enough to pay their own way in life? wow you don't think much of criminals do you...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yeah well that makes no sense.  They can drive a car but not own a gun?  lol  nutz


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 24, 2015)

The reason no workable ideas are being brought up is because this is not a gun problem, it is a perception problem.  Because our access to information is now widespread and almost instantaneous, we think things are getting worse.  This really is not the case.  We just see them more.

In 1950, before all of the attempts to control gun ownership and the advent "assault weapons" the gun related homicide rate in the US was 5.1 per 100,000.  In 2010, the rate was 5.3.  Our population doubled, we went through tremendous changes in our population, and there has been essentially no impact upon gun related homicides.  All of the laws we implemented changed nothing.  All of the changes in gun design and magazine capacity changed nothing.  We are essentially where we were 65 years ago. 

While the mass shootings we find out about almost as they are happening are tragic, they are not caused by guns.  Increasing gun laws, or even implementing gun laws, won't impact them.  Using gun laws to address this issue is like giving a starving child a new party dress.  It might be an easy solution, but it doesn't solve the problem.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


All those quotes in praise of Fascist were made in the depths of the Great Depression.  Those who praised Facism were doing so based upon the turnaround of the Fascist economies.  

That Great Depression occurred due to uncheck, unfettered Capitalism.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Should criminal labor compete in the Free Market with private businesses?  Who's the Conservative here?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Nine pages in and not a single suggestion that would have any impact at all.  Shocker.


I know -I- am surprised.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




The Great Depression happened because they tried to get out of it by raising taxes and tariffs which wrecked the recovery...then socialist FDR started trying to control all aspects of the economy and slowed down the recovery even more......


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 24, 2015)

If we worked on violence by working on gun violence only, it'd be like working on cancer by only addressing the pain. Meanwhile, everybody still dies from the cancer but pain-free.

Violence is a symptom of a larger problem. But if we don't know what the bigger problem is, working on fixing the symptom isn't going to do anything.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The Great Depression happened due to the reactions to it?

Conservative logic at play here!  Beware!


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




There had been several great depressions earlier in our history, one even worse than the one in the 30s....look them up...and they were all dealt with and recovered from.  The difference in the 1930s was the length and depth of the depression....it just did not end...why....because in the past the economy wasn't meddled with......they took the pain and the economy improved....the government tried to fix it....raised taxes on everyone, and raised tarrifs on trade, cutting off the ability to grow out of the depression........then FDR started meddling with the economhy and the Supreme Court and desabalized the whole system........that is why the Great depression was Great....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> The reason no workable ideas are being brought up is because this is not a gun problem, it is a perception problem.  Because our access to information is now widespread and almost instantaneous, we think things are getting worse.  This really is not the case.  We just see them more.
> 
> In 1950, before all of the attempts to control gun ownership and the advent "assault weapons" the gun related homicide rate in the US was 5.1 per 100,000.  In 2010, the rate was 5.3.  Our population doubled, we went through tremendous changes in our population, and there has been essentially no impact upon gun related homicides.  All of the laws we implemented changed nothing.  All of the changes in gun design and magazine capacity changed nothing.  We are essentially where we were 65 years ago.


Wait....
65 years of ever-increasing gun control has failed to change anything?
This clearly proves we need more!


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


And yet when FDR was sworn in, the Great Depression had hobbled the economy for three years under Herbert Hoover's Conservative economic policies.


----------



## westwall (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...








They admired the precision and speed with which things were accomplished.  When the Collectivization of the Ukrainian farms was underway, with the attendant 3 to 5 million dead that that entailed the progressives hailed it as a necessary act.  The KNEW that millions were dying and felt it appropriate.  I hate to tell you but mass murder, for any reason is NEVER acceptable, no matter how fucked up your personal belief system is.

The facts are millions were dying, the progressives knew it.....and they APPLAUDED it.

Progressivism has murdered more people in the last 150 years, than all the religions in the world have managed to murder in the last 2,000 years.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > The reason no workable ideas are being brought up is because this is not a gun problem, it is a perception problem.  Because our access to information is now widespread and almost instantaneous, we think things are getting worse.  This really is not the case.  We just see them more.
> ...


 
Obviously.  As any decent politician will tell you, if you can't do anything about the problem at least do something that will make it look like you are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

Post 106...
Still looking for sound reply to post #1....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Post 106...
> Still looking for sound reply to post #1....



The OP obviously has everyone who is offering him sound and valid answers on ignore because I have seen several that are feasible.

Then again maybe the OP isn't interested in actually having an "honest and open debate on gun control" at all.

Maybe he just wanted an excuse to whine instead.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 24, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Post 106...
> ...


 There have been no sound or valid answers.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


So Progressives decades ago, generations ago not only praised Fascism but understood the inherent evil of the Fascists.

And today, decades later, generations later, I am to be held to account for the sins of my fathers.  Do you really want to play that game knowing the evils Conservatives have perpetrated?  Is this primrose path of an argument solving any problems?  Divining any solutions?  Or is it in fact, rhetorical masturbation meant only to please you and further no other goal than that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Indeed -- none of them reach the goal of condition #1 and/or the qualification of condition #2.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Indeed -- none of them reach the goal of condition #1 and/or the qualification of condition #2.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.


Violates the constitution.  Fail.
Does not prevent criminals from getting guns.  Fail.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




No....he raised taxes and tarrifs sinking any hope of getting out of the depression....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> ...



BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




And how would banning magazines have stopped this mass shooting or the others.....they wouldn't because they will just use stolen magazines or illegal magazines like all the criminals in France and the rest of Europe do.....you know moron, you aren't original....others have banned all magazines....and their criminals still get 30 round magazines for rifles......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...





> And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either



Are you really this stupid........all magazines of any size are banned in Europe...in particular France....and their terrorists and criminals get 30 round magazines easily, all the time...dittos in Mexico where they are also banned and the drug cartels easily get them.........dittos around the  world where criminals want or need them.....they get them easily...the only ones who can't are peaceful, law abiding citizens who don't use them to kill innocent people......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


This is a lie, and example of why I need not ever worry about any of your responses.

3.  The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Still looking for a sound response to the OP.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Are you really this stupid........


No...  he's that dishonest.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You didn't answer MY post. 

Try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

120 posts, no sound responses.
Huh.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 24, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



What exactly is so magic about the number 9?  Why is 9 ok and 10 isn't?  Explain that logic to me.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 120 posts, no sound responses.
> Huh.



Looks like the OP just proved why it isn't possible to have an open and honest debate on gun control with Gun Festishists because they can't be honest and open under any circumstances.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 24, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 120 posts, no sound responses.
> ...



You haven't provided a sound response.  You have tossed out some arbitrary standards but not even attempted to demonstrate how they would have any impact.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> You haven't provided a sound response.  You have tossed out some arbitrary standards but not even attempted to demonstrate how they would have any impact.


And, whatever they are, shown that they do not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> What exactly is so magic about the number 9?  Why is 9 ok and 10 isn't?  Explain that logic to me.


There is none; it is arbitrary.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 24, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



*No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.*

what a foolish response


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> *No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.*
> what a foolish response


What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2015)

128 posts...  no sound responses.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.*
> ...




exactly 

the false fallback position


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 128 posts...  no sound responses.



Well, you're looking for "honest debate". With liberals you can't have that...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 128 posts...  no sound responses.



yup maybe tomorrow 

--LOL


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.*
> ...


It proves two things.  First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous.  The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms.  Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal.  No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 24, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 128 posts...  no sound responses.
> ...



Not gonna happen. When we're talking honest, we're also talking facts and logic. Liberals hate that. In fact, once you start talking facts, you pretty much stop worrying about being politically correct. That's exactly what conservative need to do, because they're too busy tip toeing on eggshells to appease people who are perpetually offended, and thus their message is diluted. Do liberals worry about offending conservatives? No, they go full steam ahead and even try to be as abrasive as possible.

Being a liberal is something most people grow out of. There is no reason to keep them in it longer by pandering to their idiotic fantasies. Against liberals, fact and logic are the best weapon.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 24, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




the one thing libs hate more then anything 

is other peoples opinions that differ from theirs 

followed closely by facts that disagree with their opinions 

--LOL

so yes i have agree that it is unlikely


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> It proves two things.  First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous.  The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.
> 
> Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms.  Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal.  No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...





Ame®icano said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




cant happen --LOL

better check past and current history 

--LOL


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > It proves two things.  First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous.  The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.
> ...


Well said.  You must be educated.  Or not.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Well said.  You must be educated.  Or not.



You don't have to worry about my education. I find it really interesting that you avoided my previous post where I actually said something directly about liberals. Keep distorting the truth, keep lying and keep repeating lies, keep pressing full speed. Honest debate with left? 

Here is the example... 






NBCNews


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jun 24, 2015)

Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.

First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally.  This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.

Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward.  And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military.  In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias.  The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment)  However, times changes and so must the people that live in them.  There are no absolutes in this debate.  To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy.  Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone.  It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place.  SO........

Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically. 

Ban fully automatic weapons  (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.

As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly.  Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 24, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Well said.  You must be educated.  Or not.
> ...


Are you complaining or bragging about the notorious terrorist record of White American Conservatives?


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 24, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Are you complaining or bragging about the notorious terrorist record of White American Conservatives?



Do you, by any chance, have any proof of what you just said? We both know you pulled that out of your ass. 
Now, have you clicked on the link and find out what the study is actually about? Based on your reply, you haven't. This study doesn't state that anywhere. However, as typical liberal, you had to shitpost something, regardless of knowing it's a lie. This thread calls for an open and honest debate. Why are you here?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 25, 2015)

"Honest and open debate on gun control"

This can only occur if those participating acknowledge the fact that although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Such a debate would then address what regulatory policies are appropriate and warranted, and what policies are not – not whether or not government is authorized to enact regulations at all, as is often times the case, rendering 'debate' impossible. 

Moreover, those participating must also acknowledge current Second Amendment jurisprudence, where although one may disagree with how the courts have ruled concerning a given regulatory measure, those measures are nonetheless Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment.

Consequently, and unfortunately, given the usual participants in these threads and their unwillingness to abide by the above provisions, such a debate can prove only pointless and futile.

Pity, as Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, where many important topics merit discussion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> ...


And here we see the OP himself with this post demonstrate why an “honest and open debate on gun control” is impossible.

Measures prohibiting the possession of some semi-automatic firearms such as AR platform rifles have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts, such as New York's Safe Act.

Measures limiting the magazine capacity of semi-automatic handguns have also been upheld as Constitutional, such as enacted in Colorado.

Discussing the merits of these provisions is appropriate and warranted, and one is at liberty to disagree with these rulings by the courts, but as a fact of law it is incorrect to refer to these measures as 'un-Constitutional.'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Correct.

The notion that gun registration would result in 'confiscation' is ignorant and ridiculous, failing as a _post hoc_ fallacy.

Indeed, 'gun confiscation' by government would never occur because such a measure authorizing government to do so would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

A 'gun confiscation' argument is unfounded, paranoid idiocy and demagoguery.

Although measures authorizing gun registration have been upheld as Constitutional, registration should nonetheless be challenged on undue burden grounds, where there is no evidence that registration prevents gun crimes, or serves a legitimate government interest to place such a restriction on the Second Amendment right. That a gun 'might' be used in the commission of a crime is does not justify the burden of registration.


----------



## Politico (Jun 25, 2015)

Honest discussion. You can't have our guns. Discussion complete.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


 
I don't think anyone has suggested that 2nd amendment rights are unlimited.  All rights have limitations.  However, if you want to limit a right then you need to do more than just say "because".  So explain why the limitations you do want to apply are justified.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
> 
> First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally.  This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
> 
> ...


 
Whether I need something or not is irrelevant.  You wish to limit what I can do.  Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




Um.....are you unaware that the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by tribesmen armed with small arms and other equipment The soviets had tanks, jets and attack helicopters.....and that in Iraq and Afganistan they fought the U.S. military to the point our political leadership just got tired and walked away and we have the most advanced military in the world...with little more than small arms and IEDs.......and yet you guys think that a well armed American Population will just submit to a murdererous U.S. government....

And besides, the whole point to an armed society is to make them decide it wouldn't be worth trying in the firs place...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.




I'll have a go. 

Firstly it's education. Improve education and educational opportunities for all. This doesn't mean throwing money at education. It means putting in place an educational system that teaches kids what they need to know.
So, this first means you need to know what kids need. Aim of education, producing decent adults with the skills they need to thrive in society. This would mean having some kids in technical schools which teach them the relevant education they need for whatever job it is they're going for, and more. So a future plumber would learn more than just plumbing, but things they need to be an electrician and other such jobs that are similar. Along side this useful skills like maths, critical thinking and many other such things. Also with learning about how to be a decent human being. This includes things like cooking and how to be in a relationship with someone and what to expect from such a relationship. Many divorces happen because people have the wrong attitude to marriage. 

Secondly it's about improving parenting, especially in inner city areas and poorer areas. Schools should be teaching kids how to cook healthily and understand nutritional information and all of that, however parents also need to be on board. There are many ways this sort of thing could be implemented, I don't know the best ways, but this is something that needs to be looked at. 

Thirdly it's about job opportunities. The govt needs to stop funding big corporations to hire people for extremely cheap labor. It's a weird US phenomenon but it does nothing to help. 

Fourthly it's about helping kids through their teenage years with mental health issues. Not just teenagers, but all people.  
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf

"At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates."

Imagine if many of these people with mental health problems hadn't committed their crimes because their mental health issues had been dealt with. Then with lower prisoner populations, and the massive spending on housing prisoners and putting them through the court system, you'd have billions of dollars to spend on treating such people.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
> 
> First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally.  This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
> 
> ...




What does a license do exactly.....No one who has ever suggested that can point out what that does to stop criminals or mass shooters?  Criminals currently avoid all laws pertaining to guns, and mass shooters for the most part obey every law pertaining to guns before they commit their mass murder....or they too steal the weapons or buy them illegally....so what would licensing do exactly?

Who would pay for the course?  You cannot require voters to pay a poll tax or take a literacy test since voting is a right and those are infringements on that right so requiring a fee and a test to exercise the right to bear arms would be unConstitutional as well.


----------



## Dan Daly (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.



This notion that one can prevent criminals from "getting guns" is the logical fallacy that all gun control laws are based upon...so either those that advocate for such laws are not the brightest bulbs on the tree, or their goal is to disarm law abiding citizens.  I'll let them decide which category they fall into.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




But they are wrong...there is no reason to keep the standard weapon the tax payers provide for their employees, the police and miltary, from the people who pay for them, the tax payers...and in fact the wide spread ownership of these arms deters government hostility and violence against the citizens.

Magazine limits are pointless and do nothing to stop criminals and mass shooters from getting them.  Again, if the police and military can use standard magazines then the people who employ the police and military and pay for their equipment get to have them as well.


----------



## Dan Daly (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.



Because criminals NEVAR get anything via the black market, right?

What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






> Because registration leads to confiscation?  Ridiculous!



Wiemar Germany registered guns....the 3rd Reich confiscated them.

Britain registered guns, the government then confiscated them.

Australia registered guns, then mandated a forced buy back.

various states have enacted bans on various types of firearms, which have been made easier through previous registration programs.

You are a fucking moron......


----------



## Dan Daly (Jun 25, 2015)

ErikViking said:


> Criminals doesn't show the mental ability to be armed. Hence, license (and plight) removed.



I'm sorry my friend, but that statement seems to indicate that it is you who doesn't show the mental ability to be armed...or engage in logical debate.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




They can't...their limits do nothing to stop crimnals or mass shootings, they just keep law abiding citizens from owning guns.   History has shown this over and over again.....


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Are you complaining or bragging about the notorious terrorist record of White American Conservatives?
> ...


I asked a question and you demand proof.  Do you speak English as a second language?


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jun 25, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
> ...



What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.

 You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending  yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse).  The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver. 

By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


 
I don't have to explain it to you.  I don't have to justify it to you.  Maybe I think it would be a cool lamp.  I'm not the one saying my will should be imposed upon you, you want to impose your will upon me.  So justify it.  How would society be safer?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Actually there are plenty of examples of insurgents harassing militaries with superior numbers and arms, and causing havoc.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...



I am guessing that when you refer to an "automatic weapon" you mean an autoloader, not an actual automatic weapon.   There was no automatic weapon used in the theater in Colorado.  There was only an autoloader, which jammed after firing only a few rounds.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Jun 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It's an interesting list of massacres attributed to Leftists. 

1. The communist revolutions in China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and South America. 

2. The banning of DDT which was saving 60 million lives a year. 

3.  Abortion on demand

4. The Nazi holocausts

5. Standing by while 800,000 Rwandans are slaughtered. 

The number of deaths attributed to the demonic Left reaches well into the hundreds of millions. They have served well their father, the devil.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jun 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
> ...




Requiring a license would provide the educational foundation for the proper handling, storage and permissible use of weapons.  Also, in the time it takes to receive the training to obtain a license, a more thorough background check to include a mental assessment. 

Who would pay for the course?  who paid for your drivers education so that you could get a drivers license?  Never mentioned requiring a tax.  Are you?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> It's an interesting list of massacres attributed to Leftists.
> 
> 1. The communist revolutions in China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and South America.
> 
> ...



Life's so easy when you can be so simplistic and twist anything and everything. 

Seeing as the US supported the Chinese, the Russians, the Cambodians and interfered massively in South America, the Khmer Rouge, barbaric as sin, the Vietnamese were the ones who toppled the Khmer Rouge, yet the US still fought for the Khmer Rouge to be the official body in the US for Cambodia.

Let's talk about massacres, like those of the Native Americans in the US. Or the massive numbers of killed in Iraq because Bush destabilized the country and messed up the post war period. 

Not really sure what you're going on about with the Nazi Holocaust. Are you suggesting that Hitler was left wing simply because NSDAP  has the word Socialist in it? 

It's so easy to just point fingers and make silly assumptions. Extremists are extreme. A left wing person isn't automatically extreme, nor is a right wing person. 

But then I guess when have facts ever got in the way of b*llsh*t?


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


 

No, you guessed wrong.  And I didn't say that one was used in the theater shooting.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...



So you are addressing the ownership of a weapon that currently requires a more in-depth background check, additional fingerprinting, additional taxes, and more restrictions.  But you used an event that had no such weapon involved as an example?

Ok then.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



OK then, why don't you explain why anyone would need an automatic weapon?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...



Whether someone needs it or not is irrelevant when discussing rights.

Why does someone need freedom of speech?  Why do we need freedom of religion?

Fully automatic weapons are strictly regulated.  They are rarely used in ordinary crimes.  And the extraordinary crimes would have them whether they are legal or not.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jun 25, 2015)

Okay, we're playing with words now.  WHY WOULD ONE WANT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON?  And the fact that automatic weapons are not needed is relevant to rights, the rights granted to us by the constitution are NEEDED to ensure our freedoms.  Does an individual have the need to own to protect the freedoms enjoyed by the society as a whole?  That is the basis for the entire debate about the 2nd amendment, IS IT NEEDED?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Okay, we're playing with words now.  WHY WOULD ONE WANT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON?  And the fact that automatic weapons are not needed is relevant to rights, the rights granted to us by the constitution are NEEDED to ensure our freedoms.  Does an individual have the need to own to protect the freedoms enjoyed by the society as a whole?  That is the basis for the entire debate about the 2nd amendment, IS IT NEEDED?



The original intent of the 2nd amendment is to provide the citizens a means of protecting their nation from tyranny and invasion.  In that case, yes there is a use for automatic weapons.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 25, 2015)




----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



You said that White American Conservatives have notorious terrorist record. If you want me to answer, you need to provide proof of that.

I got simple yes or no question for you. Have you stopped beating your wife?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Okay, we're playing with words now.  WHY WOULD ONE WANT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON?  And the fact that automatic weapons are not needed is relevant to rights, the rights granted to us by the constitution are NEEDED to ensure our freedoms.  Does an individual have the need to own to protect the freedoms enjoyed by the society as a whole?  That is the basis for the entire debate about the 2nd amendment, IS IT NEEDED?


 
No, that is not the basis of the entire debate.  It is irrelevant to the debate.  If you want to limit me you need more of a reason than you don't think I need it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Whether someone needs it or not is irrelevant when discussing rights.
> 
> Why does someone need freedom of speech?  Why do we need freedom of religion?
> 
> Fully automatic weapons are strictly regulated.  They are rarely used in ordinary crimes.  And the extraordinary crimes would have them whether they are legal or not.



Unless of course you don't understand the right, which is highly plausible seeing as most people don't.

There's the right to keep arms. Which is ownership. This merely prevents the US govt (and now states) from stopping people from owning arms. 
It doesn't stop the US govt from stopping people having certain types of arms. For example, nukes, tanks, SAMs and so on. So the question is, where's the line. If Nukes can be banned, but say, a hand gun, can't be banned then what is the difference? 

The difference is generally in what is considered to be "militia weaponry". That doesn't mean weaponry owned by the militia, but weaponry owned by the people that is "common" (what ever that means) in ownership for the potential use in the militia. 

Many people will get their knickers in a twist thinking that I'm saying that the militia owns the weapons and all the stuff, note, I did not say that and I don't mean that.

There's also the right to bear arms. This is the right to be in the militia. It has nothing to do with carrying arms.

You have to remember that the Founding Fathers didn't protect every right they assumed to exist. Just certain ones connected with politics. 

The 2A concerns the militia. The right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that the US govt could not take away from them, and the right to bear arms so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel who could use those arms. 

So, all in all, semi-automatics aren't often considered the sort of weapon that people would own normally and which might be used in the even of the militia being necessary in the future. So, in theory, they could be banned by the US govt without infringing on the 2A.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
> 
> First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally.  This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
> 
> ...



requiring a firearms license would not stop criminals from obtaining firearms 

requiring a license would not do much other then create a new federal  bureaucracy of un elected officials

as for banning military weapons those are the exact weapons the 2nd amendment is talking about


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Whether someone needs it or not is irrelevant when discussing rights.
> ...



The militia, as understood by the founding fathers, were armed citizens that could be called upon to defend the nation.  It was not a separate entity from the citizenry.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> The militia, as understood by the founding fathers, were armed citizens that could be called upon to defend the nation.  It was not a separate entity from the citizenry.



Yep. 

However the militia wasn't just citizens running around with guns. No govt in their right mind would have a separate military entity that wasn't partly controlled by the government. Hence why officers would be appointed and the militia could be called up for federal duty.

*"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"*

The state appointed officers. They weren't appointed from the people. Governors had control over the militia at normal times, then the fed when called up for duty. 

Also, this has been shown to be true from Supreme Court proceedings. 

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"
*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
*
So in 1886 they did not consider men parading with arms in towns to be protected by the 2A. This means that bear arms does not mean simply "carrying arms", that it does mean bearing arms in militia service.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.



Generally what people think the Supreme Court said and what the Supreme Court actually said are two different things.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.


 M14, you can never ever have an honest and open debate with Democrats on guns because they have them also, they just don't want you too.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.
> ...



The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Requiring a license would provide the educational foundation for the proper handling, storage and permissible use of weapons.  Also, in the time it takes to receive the training to obtain a license, a more thorough background check to include a mental assessment.
> 
> Who would pay for the course?  who paid for your drivers education so that you could get a drivers license?  Never mentioned requiring a tax.  Are you?



Excellent plan, isn't it? Only thing you didn't explain and I guess it remains to figure out is, how to force criminals get thru all required steps of getting license.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.



I'm wondering why you've decided to explain this right now. Was anyone saying anything about some kind of collective right? No they weren't. So......... what is your point.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Jun 25, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.
> ...


Let me dumb it down for your percentile of comprehension.

SUPREME COURT: Leftwats no can take away guns.  

If that's still too academic I can draw a picture:


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Let me dumb it down for your percentile of comprehension.
> 
> SUPREME COURT: Leftwats no can take away guns.
> 
> If that's still too academic I can draw a picture:




Whatever a "Leftwats" is. Maybe you could try speaking properly instead of putting and another thread into the pits of stupidity. 

But I'll say again, most people don't understand it, and the way you're talking I'd bet you're one of those who hasn't got much of a clue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


>


Nah.   British soldiers were the best in thew world back then - like ours, now.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.


Mine?
You're joking, right?


> First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally.


Very true - it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.


> However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society....
> Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.


Earn the right to exercise a right?  Why do you think this does not violate the constitution?
Obtain a license to exercise a right?  Why do you think this does violate the constitution?


> Ban fully automatic weapons


On what grounds?  How ofen are they used illegally?


> As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly.  Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.


And yet, you seek to add those law/restrictions/prohibitions...?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Honest and open debate on gun control"
> 
> This can only occur if those participating acknowledge the fact that although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
> 
> ...


Lots of words..  No actual response.
No surprise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...





> Measures prohibiting the possession of some semi-automatic firearms such as AR platform rifles have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts, such as New York's Safe Act.


Cite?


> Measures limiting the magazine capacity of semi-automatic handguns have also been upheld as Constitutional, such as enacted in Colorado.


Cite?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
> ...



You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not.  And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said.  I covered both with one sentence.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.


There are any number of traditionally legal uses for a gun; an automatic weapon is suitable for use in any number of them.


> You can't go hunting with it....


I hunt with an AR-15 - why can't I hunt with an M16A2?


> doesn't make you any safer in defending  yourself or your property


I have a semi-auto M1928 Thompson for home defense -- how is the full-auto version any less effective to that end?


> The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver.



That's the ONLY reason, eh?
Explain how/why none of the legal machine guns in the US have been used for this purpose?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Requiring a license...


Licensing and registration are two sides of the same coin - a precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to same, where law-abiding citizens are required by the state to tell the state when/how they will exercise their right before said state allows them to do so.

This is an unjustified and unwarranted infringement for which the state has no compelling need.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


An effective  illustration of liberal lunacy.
Well done.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...


Explicitly, as well.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


That's because he will only lie to you, and you will not.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 25, 2015)

We are now on page 20 of the thread and there still has not been a single supported reason provided.  The closest thing was the statement that no one needs an automatic weapon.  Not that there is anything to show having one is an issue, only that it is not needed.  I don't need to wear black jeans, but I expect some argument stronger than that before I accept a law preventing me from wearing them.

This just shows that laws addressing guns do nothing to impact the actual problem - violence.  The only benefit these laws provide is that they are simplistic and relatively cheap, so politicians can use them to pretend they are doing something.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not.  And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said.  I covered both with one sentence.



The issue about whether the 2A is individual or collective is rather a silly one. The left make the argument because they don't understand the amendment. HOWEVER, the amendment is not simply one of "it's ind


PratchettFan said:


> We are now on page 20 of the thread and there still has not been a single supported reason provided.  The closest thing was the statement that no one needs an automatic weapon.  Not that there is anything to show having one is an issue, only that it is not needed.  I don't need to wear black jeans, but I expect some argument stronger than that before I accept a law preventing me from wearing them.
> 
> This just shows that laws addressing guns do nothing to impact the actual problem - violence.  The only benefit these laws provide is that they are simplistic and relatively cheap, so politicians can use them to pretend they are doing something.



You didn't read what I wrote then? No one replied to it, hardly surprising, people just stick to what they're comfortable with.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> We are now on page 20 of the thread and there still has not been a single supported reason provided.  The closest thing was the statement that no one needs an automatic weapon.  Not that there is anything to show having one is an issue, only that it is not needed.  I don't need to wear black jeans, but I expect some argument stronger than that before I accept a law preventing me from wearing them.
> 
> This just shows that laws addressing guns do nothing to impact the actual problem - violence.  The only benefit these laws provide is that they are simplistic and relatively cheap, so politicians can use them to pretend they are doing something.


Specifically, none of the responses have met condition 1, and almost all of them meet condition 2.

Setting up a system where private sellers can easily and voluntarily run a background check is not a terrible idea, but does not meet condition 1.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not.  And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said.  I covered both with one sentence.



The issue of whether it is collective or individual is silly. The left based their "collective right" argument on nothing, and were massively clutching at straws. 

However the real issue, what I'm talking about is, what is individual? 

The right to keep and bear arms.

Well, what does that mean? This is the issue. Then you have the Heller case and what they said which is often misinterpreted or just misunderstood.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

So, there's an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia. This does NOT mean you can possess ANY firearm. It's a simple as that. The US govt cannot prevent you, before due process (even if they do) from being able to own firearms. That doesn't mean you can own any kind of firearm. There are regulations and certain firearms can simply be banned for various reasons.  

You can use arms for traditionally lawful purposes. This means that you have the right to own the weapon, and you can use it. There's no right to use it protected in the 2A, that's not what the 2A is all about. However the govt can't stop you from using your weapon, and here's the key point "lawfully". Which is a little weird to say that you can use your gun lawfully. Of course you can, it's lawful, so you're not breaking the law. 

Now, what constitutes "traditionally lawful" is about interpretation. Most people would say self defense and hunting. Carry and conceal is a dodgy one because even in English Common Law carry and conceal was not a right, so it's not really traditional. 

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So it's individual, whatever "it" is. 

"(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

Great, an individual has the right to bear arms. But what does it mean? Many people believe it means the right to carry a gun, but in Presser this was not the case and that was before the 2A was a real issue. So, an individual has the right to be in the militia, is basically what it says. How many people read it like that? Very, VERY few. Even when presented with loads of evidence from George Washington, documents from the House debating the 2A and Supreme Court decisions take in the hundred years or so after the Bill of Rights were past ALL point to the right to bear arms being the right to be in the militia.

"(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47."

Great, support that it's an individual right. Woopie.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542 , nor _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. _United States v. Miller_, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

So, Presser, which said that parading with a gun, ie carry and not concealed, was not protected by the 2A was UPHELD by the Heller court. Hence why "bear arms" does not mean to carry a gun.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, carry and conceal is NOT protected by the 2A. 

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Again, this is NOT the right to carry.

But again, many Americans will misinterpret this. 

(is this a rant in your eyes? To me this is just knowledge presented to make a point.)


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> 
> The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds.  Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street.  After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons.
> 
> Crack down on the manufacturers.  Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war.  Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.


Perhaps you can elaborate on how banning semi auto weapons will make them unavailable.   All kinds of guns are illegal in many countries in Europe; yet just like with illegal drugs, anyone can get them if they want them.  There is a huge underground gun market in Europe.  Maybe you'd just like to see all the gun owners go underground so you won't know who they are.  Great solution genius.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Perhaps you can elaborate on how banning semi auto weapons will make them unavailable.


Especially if the scores of millions of existing weapons are not confiscated.
Never mind the question as to how such a thing does not violate the constitution.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you can elaborate on how banning semi auto weapons will make them unavailable.
> ...


I have guns that are over a hundred years old in perfect working condition.  Those guns will be shooting a hundred years from now.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I have semi-automatic guns that are over 100 years old


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


lol "and other equipment"... Uhm yeah they had shoulder fired rockets provided by America that were used to take down tanks, jets, and attack helicopters


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 25, 2015)




----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Oh how nice for you, street thugs won't get guns but your friends will.  Are you completely stupid?  It's the street thugs who will be selling illegal weapons to dilettantes like you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.
> ...


The reason is the folks in power want to make sure they have sufficient superior firepower over the people.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Really!  Don't tell me you have a Mondragon.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


M1911 and Savage .22


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 25, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not.  And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said.  I covered both with one sentence.
> ...


 
It is distinctly possible I missed something you wrote.  We don't agree on every subject, but I'd say we are in sync on this one.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Of course, I was thinking about semi auto rifles.   I have a 1911, but not that old.   I have a Luger and a P-38 too, but those are both WW2 production.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > LTCArmyRet said:
> ...


The police can't really protect you, the best they can do is investigate the crime after you've already been made a victim.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Roger that.
Both belonged to my great grandfather.  God only knows where he got them.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I inherited mine too.  Got a couple of good stories around that as well.    The Luger has all matching numbers, original magazines and holster.   When my dad was in the army during the Korean War he bought it for five bucks from a sergeant who took it from a captured German officer.   It's still in about 99% condition.     
The P-38 belonged to my grandfather, it was a gift from a friend returning from Europe in 1945, he had taken it off a dead German officer.   It sat in my Grandfathers sock drawer for forty years before I got it, also all original numbers, magazines and holster in perfect condition.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Wow!  Very nice.  Keepers, both.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I would never sell them, they will be passed on to my children.   Just a small example of the kind fire power that would continue to be available long after guns are made illegal.


----------



## LTCArmyRet (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You keep asking me to explain things to you.  One thing I have learned over the years is I can't fix other people's ignorance. 

If you know so much about home defense and the use of weapons, why don't you enlighten the audience here?  I know why none of the LEGAL automatic weapons have been used for this purpose, do you?  Answer this Einstein, what must be done to the weapon in order to legally own it?


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Who are you and why are you talking to me?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'm curious what has to be done to an automatic weapon in order to legally own it.

Please explain.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> You keep asking me to explain things to you.  One thing I have learned over the years is I can't fix other people's ignorance.


It is up to you to defend and explain your points when questioned.
If you cannot do that, then your points will not sway any thinking person.

So, please begin:
-I hunt with an AR-15 - why can't I hunt with an M16A2?
-I have a semi-auto M1928 Thompson for home defense -- how is the full-auto version any less effective to that end?


> I know why none of the LEGAL automatic weapons have been used for this purpose, do you?


According to you the only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver. ---  so yes, please do explain why none of the legal machine guns in the US have been used for this purpose.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Who are you and why are you talking to me?


Pretty sure he meant that for me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> LTCArmyRet said:
> 
> 
> > Answer this Einstein, what must be done to the weapon in order to legally own it?
> ...


Indeed -- this should be good.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2015)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Some of us are waiting for you to tell us what must be done to an automatic weapon in order to legally own it.


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 25, 2015)

Dan Daly said:


> ErikViking said:
> 
> 
> > Criminals doesn't show the mental ability to be armed. Hence, license (and plight) removed.
> ...



Obviously able enough to meet your requirements.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 25, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




Oh...we do....it is assholes like you who don't....that is why we don't trust you to make those decisions.........


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


There are libel and slander laws restricting the 1st amendment.  There continues to be illegal searches and seizures, illegal access to letters and communication.  And these infractions and regulations are regarded as de riguer among the gun lovers.

And yet, something as logical as back ground checks and registration amounts to a constitutional crisis and an affront to liberty by those same gun lovers.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.  It was written in an age when the weapons held by civilians did not significantly differ from the weapons used by national armies (with the exception of artillery and warships).

Today's national arsenals include nuclear weaponry, surface to air missiles, satellite guided weapons and, regrettably chemical and  biological  weapons.  Civilians have been completely out gunned and the notion of a bunch of self appointed 'militia' men holding off the Army and Navy and Air Forces of the United States of America over some idea of political pique have receded into history.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

228 posts, no sound responses.
Impressive.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...






> There are libel and slander laws restricting the 1st amendment.  There continues to be illegal searches and seizures, illegal access to letters and communication.  And these infractions and regulations are regarded as de riguer among the gun lovers.



yes.....when you break them....you are not required to have slander insurance, or be licensed before you can buy a computer on the off chance you might slander someone, dittos illegal searches....they are dealt with after the illegal search, not before.....and there is no way you can stop an illegal search if they intend to do it regardless of the law.....you arrest them and take them to court afterward.....

What is it that you guys don't get when it comes to laws and how they actually work.......

So what you want for the first amendment is essentially this...

To own a computer, tablet, or laptop you must register with the government in case you want to use them for cyber crime?  Right?

You must register each tablet, laptop or computer with the police so if you use it for cyber crime they can find you?  Right?

You must carry insurance and show you have that insurance for slander and libel before you post on the internet, buy a computer, write a book or an article for a magazine on the chance you might break the slander or libel law....if you don't have insurance you cannot publish or post anything and you can't own any electronic devises.....right?

You guys are so stupid.......


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 228 posts, no sound responses.
> Impressive.


Face it.  You don't want "an open and honest debate".  Each and every suggestion made has been rejected out of hand by you as either 'argument based in emotion' or totally unworkable.  You have utterly failed to proffer any solution to the gun violence problem we are saddled with in this nation.  Rather, you simply reinforce your love and devotion to the culture of the gun.

What you fail to realize is, while your personal experiences with guns might be, how should I describe this...'pleasurable', too many American families and communities have suffered under the terror wrought by guns and are fed to the gills with frustration over the intractable positions taken by the gun lobby and their devoted minions.

So I challenge you.  Give us what you think are answers to your own OP.  Otherwise, we have all been educated in your circular logic and inflexible mindset.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 228 posts, no sound responses.
> ...




No each suggestion has been analyzed and found to be useless in doing what you guys claim you want....keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.

My solution....when you catch a criminal using a gun to commit a crime, you arrest them and lock them up for a long time...unlike now where you see violent repeat offenders with weapon charges getting out of jail and murdering people.

You don't need to register anyone, license anyone or anything and it stops gun crime.

If you catch a convicted felon in possession of a gun, you arrest them and lock them up for a long time...again....no extra paperwork, which is useless anyway, is needed.

The law abiding own and carry guns without interference, and the criminals are arrested and locked up.

That is my solution....that is how every other criminal activity is handled and you are simply treating guns crime like any other crime....guilty in the commission of the crime, not before.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 228 posts, no sound responses.
> ...




Nosmo...I have asked and asked and asked people like you to explain the mechanics of your gun laws...how they will work to stop criminals and mass shooters from getting guns.....and not...if we do this they can't get guns...answers...I mean real mechanics.....I have given you mine.......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> > There are libel and slander laws restricting the 1st amendment.  There continues to be illegal searches and seizures, illegal access to letters and communication.  And these infractions and regulations are regarded as de riguer among the gun lovers.
> 
> 
> yes.....when you break them....you are not required to have slander insurance, or be licensed before you can buy a computer on the off chance you might slander someone, dittos illegal searches....they are dealt with after the illegal search, not before.....and there is no way you can stop an illegal search if they intend to do it regardless of the law.....you arrest them and take them to court afterward...


Never mind that libel and slander do not fall under the protection of the 1st amendment because they cause harm to others; using these limitations on the 1st as a parallel to justify restrictions on the 2nd only apply if the exercise of the right under the 2nd also cause harm.

Does the purchase of a firearm harm anyone?  No.
Does the simple ownership of a firearm harm anyone?  No.
Does the simple possession of a firearm harm anyone?  No.

/game


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



That does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  For your plan to work, criminals have to have guns. If you think the threat of jail is going to deter them, well, just look at how well that works with every other law that these criminals ignore.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> No each suggestion has been analyzed and found to be useless in doing what you guys claim you want....keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.


Indeed.    I do not bother with certain people because they know they cannot address the issue with anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Agreed!

The 2nd Amendment does not require that everyone must be armed to the teeth 24*7. 

But that would be Nirvana to the Gun Fetishists who don't have a clue that by obstructing all reasonable and normal regulations they are effectively depriving others of their freedom to live without being in fear that if they aren't carrying a gun at all times they will be a "victim".

The NRA and the Gun Fetishists wants to turn this nation into a "Free Gun Zone".

That is nonsensical and absurd because it introduces unnecessary risk to the lives of ordinary people.

Even during the heyday of the "Wild West" guns were banned at city limits because the local government knew that they would cause more harm than good. 

People do have a right to live in a well regulated society where guns are not required to be carried at all times.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Just when our leaders and representatives have made so much progress on dismantling the Fourth Amendment, it looks like a good time to start working on the Second Amendment as well.    Because we know how much we can trust those guys.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 25, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




once again you have it ass backwards leftard


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 25, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Ironic coming from a Gun Fetishist.

Still waiting on the OP to produce a single coherent honest post on gun control!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 228 posts, no sound responses.
> ...




*Each and every suggestion made has been rejected *

which ones 

the only one i have seen is from that army guy some posts back


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 25, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



 bigot


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



*There are libel and slander laws restricting the 1st amendment.*

what is wrong with you people 

yet another foolish response 

is that all you have going for you 

 communication of a false statements is not protected by the 1st amendment 

go back and try again


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 25, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




bigot


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 228 posts, no sound responses.
> Impressive.


That's because gun control advocates can't address the real problem.  Other nations have gun ownership, some a lot more than others.  But they don't have a problem with mass shootings.  Why is that?  It's apparent to me that the problem isn't guns,  the problem is:  we are an uncivilized society.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 228 posts, no sound responses.
> ...



true


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 25, 2015)

Fact is you're not going to keep criminals or the mentally insane from getting their hands on guns no matter how many gun bans or gun laws you have. The only viable option is to arm yourself and be prepared to take action when threatened by one of these individuals.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 228 posts, no sound responses.
> ...


The reaction to the recent mass murder in South Carolina morphed into a debate about the Confederate flag because Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to directly address gun control.   Democrat politicians seem to have learned that Second Amendment issues cut across party lines.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 25, 2015)

Let's just face facts... libs really are retarded.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Let's just face facts... libs really are retarded.


I've been a Democrat for many years, and let me tell you, it ain't easy these days.  Difficult for me to justify my continued association with that party.   When a viable alternative, middle of the road,  third party emerges,  I'll be happy to vote for them.  As it is I won't be able to bring myself to vote for Hilary, she's why I voted for Obama in the first place.  That's how terrible I think she is.   If Jim Web is the Democrat candidate I'll vote for him.  If Hilary is the candidate, then I'll vote for Jeb Bush.   If Ted Cruz is the Republican candidate, then I don't know what I'll do.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just face facts... libs really are retarded.
> ...



any vote for a democrat is a vote for extreme gun control....the next democrat will appoint Supreme Court justices and they will be vetted for anti gun activism......


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I think you're probably right about that.  The Democrats act as though they don't have a long term agenda, but these things have a way of developing after a little while.   I have hard time believing that when the San Francisco city council banned handgun ownership, that it wasn't designed to be a national test case.   Fortunately the Supreme Court ruled against the city council, but that's no guarantee for the future.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2015)

I do.  I bo


Liminal said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...









I do.   I bought mine 30 years ago.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction.  Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

westwall said:


> I do.  I bo
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> ...


Really?  That is impressive.  You must be a serious collector, if it's in good condition it must be worth at least $10,000.   I saw a Mondragon once at the big Reno gun show about ten years ago.
Correction, it has to be worth at least $25,000 and possibly as much as 40,000.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Some problems defy reasonable solution, or any solution at all.  Sure, you can ban guns....but then what?   Have you considered the reaction, the likely backlash?   Is it worth the price of the possibility of secession and civil war?  I don't think it is.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


I'll risk hyperbole in exchange for fewer mass shootings.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 25, 2015)

52ndStreet said:


> If there was an armed Church member in the Church, the demon with the gun would have been
> terminated. Guns don't kill people kill.
> End of story, over and out.
> Thank you. And God bless you all.


Just think...if there had been an armed person somewhere near President Reagan in 1981, he and others would not have been shot.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just face facts... libs really are retarded.
> ...


I gave up on the pubs for the same reason.  I'm libertarian now and I don't care if my votes are a waste.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




Okay genius.....he murdered to get the gun.....and how would the background check, which he didn't go through stop him....and the shooter in Santa barbara, got three guns with 3 different background checks, no AR-15, and used 10 round magazines........

I notice you didn't explain the mechanics of any of your gun control laws that you support.....

Also...in Europe they have extreme gun control......all guns are inaccessible to law abiding citizens.....and 3 terrorists, 2 on government terrorist watch lists, 1 a convicted felon, easily got fully automatic rifles, with 30 round magazines, the same for the gang members in Marseille, France who used fully automatic rifles to shoot up a neighborhood just before the French Prime minister was supposed to speak about crime there....dittos, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium....all fully automatic rifles in Countries with gun control laws far more extreme than ours....

And they got fully automatic rifles easily....

So how do you propose that our gun laws would be any better?  Please explain?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

bodecea said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > If there was an armed Church member in the Church, the demon with the gun would have been
> ...




Notice......moron......that they didn't stop him before he shot Reagan did they.....and the Secret Service actively look for threats every day, and actually investigate possible threats, they don't just wait for shooters.....and what did they do....they caught him when he used the gun and arrested him.........

That is the only way to stop criminals with guns....you stop them like every other crime, when they actually break the law....you guys want to stop them before they break the law....and unless you are a  mind reader it isn't going to happen......even with the Secret Service on the job....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




In this election if you don't vote Republican you will be giving away your gun rights....hilary will get at least 2, maybe more Supreme Court justices who will be vetted for anti gun judicial activism.   You won't just waste your vote this time, you will be giving it to a certified gun grabber.  Remember, Heller and MacDonald were both decided with one vote...and the leftist judges do not respect precedent.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 25, 2015)

262 posts, no sound responses


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 228 posts, no sound responses.
> Impressive.





M14 Shooter said:


> 262 posts, no sound responses



No one even replied to my first post.

Post 149 Honest and open debate on gun control Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So, if you want to ignore people then say there's nothing good written, then you have a problem.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


I'm sure it's much easier for you to dispense with it as hyperbole than it is to deal with it.    
I seem to remember a couple of years ago, in the wake of Obama's re-election, polls were taken indicating the number of voters who would vote for secession.   25% of the voters in Texas would apparently vote for secession because Obama was re-elected.   What do you suppose would happen if this country were to have a real problem?  A real crisis, a real constitutional conflict....how would people react then?  I think I can guess.  You can call that hyperbole too.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Nobody is going to secede anytime within the lives of us,our children or our grandchildren, Stonewall.  Forget it.  Where would a secession succeed?  A trailer park secedes from a township?  Never gonna happen. Bank on it.

All this primrose path of secession is nothing more than a distraction at best, the wet dream of the politically ignorant at worst.

I lived through more times of crisis that were genuine.  1968 was a year that held more history than is fair.  More turmoil, and genuine turmoil happened that year and not even the crustiest Conservative hard heads thought of secession.  It's hyperbole of the first order and, quite frankly, sounds silly and uninformed.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 262 posts, no sound responses


But you can see why they'd be so enthusiastic about working on the Second Amendment.  Just look at all the good work that's been done to the Forth Amendment.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Never going to happen?  What would prevent it.......McClellan?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Grand fears of terrorism aside, consider the conveinence store clerk shot in a hold up or the drive by shooting on the MLK or the kids caught in crossfire or the kid who finds his Dad's gun and blows herself away.

The gun culture excuses or ignores the everyday crimes while telling the world that mass shootings are unavoidable and the world had better just get used to them because THEIR guns are too precious.

Selfishness coupled with willful ignorance is a dangerous condition.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


No.  Common sense and mature rational thought.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Your common sense doesn't seem to be adapting itself to a rapidly evolving and constantly changing world.    You think like a conservative.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

It pays to remember that the last time this country experienced secession, it wasn't resolved through any legal or legislative means.   And the Constitutional questions that led to the perception of a legitimate secession remain unchanged, and therefore unresolved in the minds of some people.  If you don't think there's enough tinder there to start a fire then you're bound to get burned again, sooner or later.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 25, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 25, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


It can be found here in the Constitution:

'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. _Miller’s_ holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Here up to this fork in the trail you took to talk secession, I thought we were getting along very well.  Then you had to insult me in the cruelest possible words.


----------



## MikeK (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.


If firearms were banned only the law-abiding would comply with the ban, thus making them vulnerable to armed criminals.  

If firearms were banned only high-quality guns would be prohibitively expensive, mainly because they would be difficult for bootleggers to obtain from their reputable and honest manufacturers.  But the ban would promptly give rise to the off-shore manufacture (China, Iran, Russia, et al) of marginal to inferior but perfectly functional knock-offs.  And if you believe vigorous enforcement of the ban would eliminate or impede smuggling and black-market distribution, please consider alcohol Prohibition and the utterly ineffective "War On Drugs" which has been going on for decades with counterproductive results.

The simple fact of the matter is guns are endemic to the American culture and nothing short of the most severely repressive totalitarian methods can eliminate them.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 25, 2015)

MikeK said:


> If firearms were banned only the law-abiding would comply with the ban



I do not think they would.


----------



## Liminal (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


You're right, that was harsh.  But I think the world is changing so fast these days, and becoming so much more complicated, that I believe insurrection, secession, or whatever, could happen a lot faster than people realize.  Look at how social media has been used to radically and quickly change political conditions in the middle east.  The old rules and expectations don't seem to apply any more.


----------



## westwall (Jun 25, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I do.  I bo
> ...











I paid around 5 grand for it when I first bought it.  Nowadays it's worth upwards of 45k.  Fifty K on a good day.   What's funny is I bought it at the Shotgun News gun show at the MGM Grand which grew up to be the Big Reno  Gun Show.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




No...you are wrong....we know about those shootings...we also know that armed people stop those very crimes every single day.....read the stories study the research....women with guns stop rapes, clerks with guns stop robberies  

And kids dying from gun accidents...less than 100 a year in a country of over 320 million people with 90 million homes with guns in them......it is amazing that there are actually so few gun accidents and it  shows normal Americans are amazingly concientious about gun safety......

And again, you did not explain how gun background checks, registering legally owned guns, magazine limits, or universal background checks stop any of those shootings..........

Every day violent crimes are stopped by normal people, often with little to no training with guns, simply because they have a gun to even the odds against stronger more violent or more numerous attackers.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




Not anymore......it depends on what the one vote majority on the Supreme Court decides.....no matter what the law actually says....


----------



## Liminal (Jun 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Your Mondragon is worth about twice as much as my whole collection.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 26, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




no what is foolish and idiotic is a lefttard trying to link  that anyone thinks that an ICBM might be a 2nd amendment arm 

it is a straw position


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...




*"dangerous and unusual weapons"  *m-16 certainly is not unusual* “in common use at the time”*  and an m-16 is pretty common


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 26, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...



In the Cold War there was an arms race. This had a lot to do with ICBMs. The term "arms" can mean any weapon. 

arms definition of arms in Oxford dictionary American English US 

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments:"

Definition of arms Collins English Dictionary

"

weapons collectively See also small arms"
Definition of bear arms Collins English Dictionary

"

to carry weapons"
So, these common dictionaries use the term "arms" to mean weapons. And ICBM is a weapon, it is therefore arms. "The right to keep and bear arms", why would it not include ICBMs?

I mean, it DOESN'T include ICBMs and I know why. But the question is DO YOU?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 26, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




explain it weirdo


----------



## MikeK (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Such weapons belong in 'well regulated militias', not on the streets of America.


Although many authoritative opinions have been advanced it has never been firmly established what the Framers meant by a "well regulated militia."  But it's abundantly clear that a _militia_ would derive from the whole _People,_ whose "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Thus a militia would be drawn from an armed populace.



> Law abiding citizens can still hold as many sporting weapons as they please.


The word "sport" does not appear anywhere in the Second Amendment.



> But weapons designed exclusively for slaughtering as many humans as possible are anathema to the purposes of the constitution.


When the Constitution was framed the muzzle-loader was the most efficient (individual's) weapon available for slaughtering as many humans as possible.  The purpose of the Second Amendment was to make ordinary citizens as effective at killing as many of their human oppressors as possible, or to throw off an oppressive government -- such as they had just done.  The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the American People shall remain armed and dangerous.



> The constitution is not a suicide pact.  It was written when weapons wear muzzle loaded, not from automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines..


Maybe it would be better if more efficient firearms were never developed.  But they were.  And because they were it makes no sense for the ordinary, law-abiding citizen to remain armed with the modern equivalent of muzzle-loaders when he could be confronted with efficient auto-loading firearms.


----------



## MikeK (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Define "Well Regulated".


That is easier to do if we substitute the words _organized_ and _trained_ for the word, _regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary.  Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand._


----------



## MikeK (Jun 26, 2015)

[QUOTE="Derideo_Te, post: 11665367, member: 42916"
The founding fathers passed gun registration shortly after the nation was established.

But there doesn't need to be any gun registration if you reintroduce the draft.

Then you have everyone registered and you have their fingerprints and DNA on file. You can do mental evaluations and have them repeated every 2 years.

The draft will eliminate many of the firearm accidents since there will be a consistent level of training nationwide.

The draft will also provide a recruiting tool for the military and other agencies.[/QUOTE]
Suspending the draft was a bad move.  Restoring it will have a constructive effect in many ways.


----------



## MikeK (Jun 26, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. [...]


_Cleared_ by what process?  And by whose determination?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


 
Shooting clerks, drive by shootings, etc. are crimes.  Making them crimes did not stop the people from committing them.  A child getting her hands on her parent's guns is irresponsibility on the part of the parents.  The same could be said for leaving rat poison under the sink where the kid can get at it.  I have done none of those things and you are proposing limiting my rights.  Before you are getting my agreement on that you are going to have to clearly show that the limitations you are proposing are actually going to accomplish something.  That is the consistent failure demonstrated here.  Lot's of suggestions for limitations, but not even an attempt to show any of those limitations will do anything at all to accomplish a goal.  Hell, aside from limiting access to guns, I haven't even seen a goal expressed.  So go back to the beginning and a) tell us what it is you want to accomplish and b) how your suggestions will accomplish it.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Define "Well Regulated".
> ...


If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.
> 
> The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.



And it should stay that way.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons. 

How many citizens had those weapons?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



My mistake, I should have said "The citizens had the same rifles that the finest armies in the world carried".


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


 
Any who could afford them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 26, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



The issue with the 2A is that it is about the Militia. I've already written a post on this, unanswered, which I assume means that no one has the desire to contradict what I said. 

The first words of the Amendment are "A well regulated militia" because this is what it's all about.

The militia needs two things in order to function properly. It needs guns and it need people to fight with those guns. 

All that the 2A does is stops the US govt (and now the states) from stopping individuals from having guns that would be useful for the militia, and it stops the US govt (and now the states) from stopping individuals from being in the militia. 

The second part was easy. They simply wrote the Dick Act which said most adults are in the militia. The unorganised militia. But most males can't complain they're not in the militia, because they actually are. 

So, the first part, about guns. What guns can be had? Well first we need to look at what the US govt can and can't do.

The US govt CAN ban guns for certain reasons, like they're not safe, for example. So, if a gun were to explode and kill the user every time it was used, the feds could ban it, close down the company that made it etc etc. 

What is not protected then? This moves away from what the feds can and can't do, to what protection an individual may have (ie, there might not be protection from the 2A but the feds might also not have the power to stop someone from having a gun). 
Not all weapons are protected. Only those weapons which are considered "normal" militia weapons. Ie, what guns is is normal for a US citizen to have in their home and with which they would use if they happened to bear arms in the militia. So we're talking modern weaponry, that's an important part, modern weaponry is a must for being protected. An antique firearm is NOT protected by the 2A (doesn't mean the feds can stop you having it though, that's a different issue), mostly we're talking handguns. 

Nukes are not normal for individuals to own, also, they're dangerous even if not used. Hence why they're not protected. Tanks, fighter aircraft, SAMs etc are not normal for people to keep at home either. The fact that they could be used for mass killing is also a factor.

Where the line gets close is when you get to larger guns. Clearly some larger guns are "normal" as they are used for hunting etc. However an automatic rifle, is it "normal" for a hunter to have one? Is it "normal" for a person who wants to defend themselves to have one? 

Not really. So it probably doesn't come under the term "normal". But then again this all comes down to interpretation. 

It's clear what is and what isn't to a certain extent, but gets blurred at a point too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It can be found here in the Constitution:
> 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....


The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


Sometimes better.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

300 posts, no sound responses..


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 26, 2015)

ErikViking said:


> They will not be issued equipment? Any equipment issued will be taken back if the condition of mental stability isn't met.


You don't understand what is being asked of you.

A criminal will get a gun regardless of what equipment you issue.  How does your issuing equipment prevent the criminal from getting the gun?


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Reintroduce the draft!
> 
> All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.
> 
> ...


Only males?

Sexist much?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Reintroduce the draft!
> 
> All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.
> 
> ...



In addition to ignoring women completely, as has been pointed out already, I would want to know more about the psychological eval.

Who will create the process and who will have the authority to change it.   More than a few people would consider the desire to own a firearm as proof of mental illness.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 
There was no response because it is irrelevant.  That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited.  You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it.  The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd.  So bring it out of the rafters and:

1 - State what you want to accomplish
2 - State your plan for accomplishing it
3 - Support that your plan will accomplish it


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



As has already been pointed out private citizens at the time owned canon......and ship owners also owned their own cannon as well...to protect their ships from pirates...especially muslim pirates along the african coast....


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 26, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> There was no response because it is irrelevant.  That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited.  You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it.  The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd.  So bring it out of the rafters and:
> 
> 1 - State what you want to accomplish
> 2 - State your plan for accomplishing it
> 3 - Support that your plan will accomplish it



It's relevant. It's the facts of the thing. 

If something can be limited it's relevant. If you have the right, it's not limitable. 

Also, I didn't make the argument about nukes to magazines. You brought that up. Again, I was stating the facts. If you understand what something means, you will then make the right conclusions. If you don't understand, then you will make the wrong conclusions.

So, do I take it that you agree with what I have said, regardless of whether you want to be pedantic about whether you think it's relevant or not?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


But that is no longer the case.  Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > There was no response because it is irrelevant.  That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited.  You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it.  The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd.  So bring it out of the rafters and:
> ...


 
Ok, you have no suggestions or goals.  You just wanted to make a point having nothing to do with the thread.  Consider it made.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > There was no response because it is irrelevant.  That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited.  You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it.  The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd.  So bring it out of the rafters and:
> ...


 
Forgot to respond to your last question.  Of course it is limited.  There is no such thing as an unlimited right.  Now what?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




Why?   You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650. 

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


Not in every household.  Rifles were hand built in the 18th century and prohibitively expensive.  Most individuals were NOT armed, or at least not as well armed as any soldier in the British Army.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




Wrong...in fact the colonists had better rifles than the British.....and they all had them since they lived on the frontier........


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?


The Clinton era 'assault weapon' ban expired in 2004.
Since 2004, violent crime fell 14.5% - which, to the anti-gun loons means nothing.
Had violent crime risen 14.5%, the same anti--gun loons would cite this as proof for a need to reinstate it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?
> ...




Thanks....yeah, great point.........do you have any stats on how many people each year are killed by actual AR-15s....I know he category of rifle is about 300 so AR-15s are way below that?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


That 'handful of deaths' happens in mass shootings when a mad man with easy access to assault weapons shoots up a school or church.  But when those weapons are used in crimes like drive by shootings and other crimes involving drug trafficking, you seem to ignore those incidents.


criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military.  Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport.  If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I do not, but even if all 300 were killed by an AR....
2013:  285 rifles used.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



That last paragraph is nonsense, unless you care to show how the 2nd amendment is about only sporting firearms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> That last paragraph is nonsense, unless you care to show how the 2nd amendment is about only sporting firearms.


By now you understand why NK is DQd from any sort of honest and open discussion - right?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




Gang members in the U.S. do not use AR-15s often if at all...they are hard to conceal.....

In Europe, where they have extreme gun control, and fully automatic rifles are highly illegal, their criminals get them easily.

Explain why that is?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


They did not ALL have them.  Such rifles were expensive.  Colonist also lived in cities where the need for an expensive rifle did not exist.

You seem to think that the average American colonist could walk down to Ye Olde Wal-Mart and pick up a rifled musket at any time.  Mass production was decades away.  Weapons were hand crafted and expensive


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...





> criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.



If this is a problem, why have gun murders gone down, not up as more law abiding...that is non criminals, own and actually carry guns for self defense....

More Americans than ever before are carrying guns for self defense, over 11.1 million people.....and what you stated is not a problem.

We don't ignore drive by shootings or drug trafficking...in fact it is your side who ignores the fact that those crimes happen in the inner cities controlled by democrat politicians....and that even them most of that violence is isolated to small, multi block areas within the cities....

The rest of the city and the rest of our country are incredibly safe.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




And a necessary part of colonial life........as per being part of the militia...as well.......


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Gang members use any weapon available from shot guns to AR 15s.  Semi automatic firing systems are preferred because these Nobel laureates are not great marksmen.  But there they are!  In all their glory shooting up the streets with as much rapidity as their straw man buyer can provide.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




Nosmo...are you going to explain how the gun controls laws you want mechanically stop a criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




One...you just defeated all of your gun control laws with the word "strawman"  because if a person who is legally able to pass all of your gun control laws...and actually does pass them, then passes on a weapon to a criminal....all of your gun control laws were pointless..until you actually catch the criminal...which is my point on actual gun control that works....

Second, gang members use hand guns and shot guns because they are easily concealed or chopped down...they don't need Ar-15s for crime...

The Criminals in Europe, who are banned by law from having fully automatic rifles...get them easily....as part of their culture of crime....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......


Of course not -- he knows he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

328 posts.... no sound responses.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......


Straw man purchasers buy multiple weapons in an area with lax gun control alws and 'import' them back into cities where guns are more difficult to obtain.  they make an end run around local laws, making National laws more necessary.

I would place a manufacturing embargo on all arms producers limiting the number of weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems to 200 per annum.  Generous tax credits would be extended for complying with the embargo.  The supply of such weapons would quickly dry up.  The cost of such weapons would skyrocket.  The marketplace in action.

Any sale, import, distribution or modification of weapons would be subject to criminal prosecution.  .


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......
> ...


"open and honest debate" only on your terms.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo...I don't want to make your job easier so I'll start you off....

You have John Citizen...he has a clean record, he gets a license, he passes a universal background check and registers his gun....only uses 10 round magazines....

He then goes  and shoots up a school........

How did your gun control laws prevent the school shooting?

You have John Citizen...he has a clean record, he gets a license, he passes a Universal background check, and registers several guns......his home is broken into and his guns are stolen......

How did your gun control laws prevent the criminals from getting his guns?

You have John Citizen.....he has a clean record, he gets a license, he passes a universal background check and registers his guns....and sells them to a gang member friend after reporting the guns stolen......

How did your gun control laws prevent the sale of those guns to the criminal?

True...if you get the gang member buddy  to turn him in...you still have to prove they weren't stolen...right?

And if you can do that...you can arrest him for selling guns to a criminal....but.....you can already do that right now, today....without a license, without registering the guns without a magazine limit and without a background check, universal or otherwise...........


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo....are you going to explain how your gun control laws would mechanically work to stop gun crime and mass shooting....you sort of ruined any argument you had with the word "Straw purchaser"......
> ...




Okay.....again....you didn't address my points on how criminals get guns.  

In Europe....they can't have fully automatic rifles, and they have no gun stores for them....they don't have "lax" gun control laws and criminals easily cross international borders.  What would tax credits do for a business that makes guns but can't make them?  And how would you ban military and police weapons since that would be where the criminals would get their guns....as they do in Mexico, and Europe.........?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

As far as the threat to law enforcement officers posed by 'assault weapons'..
2004-2013, a grand total of 87 LEOs were killed by rifles of all kinds -   8.7 per year.
1994-2004, during the 'assault weapon' ban, 114 LEOs were killed - 10.4 per year.
Clearly, this carnage must stop! Ban 'assault weapons' now!

FBI Table 27
Table 28


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> As far as the threat to law enforcement officers posed by 'assault weapons'..
> 2004-2013, a grand total of 87 LEOs were killed by rifles of all kinds -   8.7 per year.
> 1994-2004, during the 'assault weapon' ban, 114 LEOs were killed - 10.4 per year.
> Clearly, this carnage must stop! Ban 'assault weapons' now!
> ...




Excellent find...I will steal it for my own purposes.....


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military.  Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport.  If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.



The same logic was used by those loyal to king George and later by Weimar and Stalin.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was, and still is, to protect people from any future tyrannical government attempt to disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. 

Since they can't touch the 2nd Amendment the way it is, lefties are trying to change meaning of words in order to allow for federal restrictions on gun rights. 

Why the government need those restrictions? To prevent mass killings? Yeah right. It's their ass they worry about.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

And here are more stats on law enforcement deaths by weapon for 2013....

FBI Officers Feloniously Killed

*Overview*

In 2013, 27 law enforcement officers died from injuries incurred in the line of duty during felonious incidents.
*Weapons*

Of the officers killed in 2013, most (26) were killed with firearms. Of these, 18 were killed with handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 27.)


2 officers had their weapons stolen.
6 officers fired their weapons; 3 officers attempted to use their weapons.
9 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders.


In 2013....police killed by all rifles...from around the country...8.....how many do you think were killed by AR-15 out of those 8?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > It can be found here in the Constitution:
> ...



Registration of guns is Constitutional.

Registration of gun owners is Constitutional.

Background checks are Constitutional.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




Wrong....they are not.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




And yet you guys still won't explain how each of these things actually work to keep criminals and mass shooters from getting guns...

Please...just tell the truth....you could give a  rat's ass if criminals get guns.....you only care about regular citizens getting guns because you know if you pass a law you can actually disarm them.....be honest....


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



So was internment of Japanese Americans, because government said so... just saying.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Reintroduce the draft!
> ...



How many women have gone around killing people in shooting sprees?

Psychological evaluations will need to be developed based upon how conscripts manage stress and FBI profiling data of those who have committed these crimes in the past.

Right now all attempts to do so have been stymied by the NRA. That obstruction needs to be removed so that genuine research can move forward.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Well...a democrat President did it so it was obviously okay.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Moron, the research never stopped, it was done by private research groups, the CDC was simply blocked from advocating gun control...which is well outside its purpose....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > That last paragraph is nonsense, unless you care to show how the 2nd amendment is about only sporting firearms.
> ...



Ironic given how the OP has DQ'd himself from his own thread.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> How many women have gone around killing people in shooting sprees?
> 
> Psychological evaluations will need to be developed based upon how conscripts manage stress and FBI profiling data of those who have committed these crimes in the past.
> 
> Right now all attempts to do so have been stymied by the NRA. That obstruction needs to be removed so that genuine research can move forward.



Are results of that "genuine research" going to be reached by dictate or consensus?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Your ignorance is apparent. No, it wasn't constitutional and the fact that you don't know the difference says volumes.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

347 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Please explain what makes those things you said above constitutional? Enlighten me.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 
But they don't do any good.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...



Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.

Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




The right to self defense is above the Constitution.  therefore any attempt to infringe on that right is UnConstitutional...moron....


----------



## Liminal (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...


Above the Constitution?  That's pretty vague.  I hope you're not talking about natural rights bestowed by God, because those aren't codified in law.  The Constitution is exactly what Second Amendment advocates need to rely on, we'd have nothing without it.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.
> 
> Background checks are used all the time in this nation. The onus is on you to prove that they are unconstitutional.



When founding fathers in the name of "we the people" have written The Constitution, and created the federal government, it also gave to that government enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. That's what The Constitution allows government to do. If you wondering why The Constitution is so short, it's because "we the people" don't want federal government to have too much power.

What federal government is constantly trying to do is to give themselves authority over things they simply have no rights over, and every time they do so, they're taking away more freedom that's guaranteed to us by The Constitution.

There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Onus is on you to prove that it is unconstitutional to register guns since the Founding Fathers did exactly that as one of their very first acts of Congress. And yes that included registration of gun owners.
> ...




There are registries of voters. Are they unconstitutional? Has anyone had their vote taken away because they are registered to vote? How is registering gun owners any different to registering voters? 

Onus remains on you to prove that it is unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?


10th Amendemnt argument,  Nice.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.
As such, restrictions placed on the right to keep and bear arms must pass a test of strict scrutiny.
Under that test, the restriction is presumed unconstitutional until the state shows the restriction serves as a means to achieve a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to that effect, and the least restrictive means to that end.

And so, the onus is on those who would restrict the right, not on those who would exercise it -- as it should be.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

Liminal said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


The right to self-defense is not granted by the constitution -- probably his point.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No....it isn't.  Registration of firearms is the first step to confiscation and banning....historically it has happened time and again...we are not going to let it happen......we will get more of our own justices now to tell you the way it will be...since that is now what the court is....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




Yeah...read post 355...he says it better than I could.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




You don't keep registries of how they voted, we have a secret ballot for a reason......registration of guns would be no different than that....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> No....it isn't.  Registration of firearms is the first step to confiscation and banning


Registration of guns and licensing of gun owners are two sides of the same coin --  a precondition laid upon the exercise of the right not inherent to same; absent that inherent precondition, the state cannot create the plenary requirement for you to tell it when and how you will exercise your rights in order for you to then gain permission form the state to do so.

Tens of millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of guns are NOT involved in a crime each year; that being the case it is impossible to soundly argue that it is necessary for the state to know the identity and whereabouts of either in order to protect the rights of the people -- and so, registration/licensing will not pass strict scrutiny.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Registration of guns and licensing of gun owners are two sides of the same coin -- a precondition laid upon the exercise of the right not inherent to same; the state cannot create the plenary requirement for you to tell it when and how you will exercise your rights in order for you to then gain permission form the state to do so.



And yet that is exactly what happens with voting rights.

You have to be registered in order to be able to vote and the state determines when and where you can vote.

What is the difference between voting rights and gun rights as far as registration goes? The state has a right to know who has guns and which guns they have in order to be able to call on a militia to defend the state. The state is not infringing on your right to own a gun by requiring that you and your gun are registered. 

Your position is a fallacy because the 2nd Amendment is clearly based upon the state's right to regulate.


----------



## MikeK (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> The Great Depression happened because they tried to get out of it by raising taxes and tariffs which wrecked the recovery...


Think about that sentence: _The Great Depression happened because they tried to get out of it... _

If something hadn't happened yet, what is it they were trying to get out of?

The Great Depression was brought about by the same kind of shady manipulations of the stock market which nearly caused a repeat of that disaster in 2008.




> then socialist FDR started trying to control all aspects of the economy and slowed down the recovery even more......


FDR initiated the only effective approach to ending the Depression by creating federally funded _make-work_ programs such as the WPA and the CCC, which gave my father a job and rescued my family from near-homeless poverty.  FDR funded those programs by imposing a 97% income tax on the upper brackets -- which is why the super-rich and their water carriers have been fomenting and spreading the kind of misleading propaganda about the Depression era and how FDR managed to transform it into the vibrant economy that gave rise to the American Middle Class.

I should mention that those _make-work_ programs did not in any way resemble welfare because they effected many very necessary repairs on and restorations of the infrastructure -- something which is desperately needed today.  So it's too bad we don't have another socialist President like FDR.

Don't allow yourself to be misled about the true nature and value of a strong socialist influence on our capitalist system.  Because socialism is what provides the energy that keeps the wheels turning.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

363 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Don't allow yourself to be misled about the true nature and value of a strong socialist influence on our capitalist system.  Because socialism is what provides the energy that keeps the wheels turning.


Completely off topic, but...
There was no capitalism before the advent of socialism?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The Great Depression happened because they tried to get out of it by raising taxes and tariffs which wrecked the recovery...
> ...


You

You realize the country didn't get out of the Depression..right?  That what he did deepened and lengthened the depression.   Had he just let the economy work...we would have been out of the depression long before World War 2.  Raising taxes, raising tarrifs, screwing with the economy and wasting tax money....wrecked any chance at coming out of the depression....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The Great Depression happened because they tried to get out of it by raising taxes and tariffs which wrecked the recovery...
> ...




The 97%  tax rate sank our economy and that on top of restrictive tarrifs made sure we were good and stuck and couldn't recover.....and all that he did....did not get us out of the depression, did it..?

Here is another depression...which we recovered from without FDR...

The Depression of 1893


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The Great Depression happened because they tried to get out of it by raising taxes and tariffs which wrecked the recovery...
> ...




And for the 97% tax rates, the massive government spending, the trade choking tarrifs and the meddling in business...how did that work for the unemployment rate.......

You really should show that all of those things helped end the depression...but they didn't....so you can't....

Facts About The Great Depression Facts About Unemployment Job Loss


Here are some interesting facts about unemployment during the Great Depression:

•In 1929, unemployment was at 3%

•In 1930, unemployment had jumped to 9%.

•In 1931, unemployment reached almost 16%.

•In 1932, unemployment climbed to 24%

•In 1933, unemployment reached almost 25%.


•In 1934, unemployment dipped slightly, to 22%.

•In 1935, unemployment fell to 20%.

•In 1936, unemployment dropped to 17%.

•In 1937, unemployment lowered to 14%.

•In 1938, unemployment rose again, to 19%.

•In 1933, which could be considered the worst year during the Great Depression (which lasted from 1929-1941), more than 11 million people were unemployed.

Here is some advice...never, ever trust a left wing history teacher...they lie....and when they aren't lying they don't know what they are talking about....

If what you say is true then the depression should have been getting better...it didn't....did it?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

> FDR initiated the only effective approach to ending the Depression



Ummmm...nothing he did ended the depression....it wasted time and money and peoples lives.......but it did not end the depression....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Don't allow yourself to be misled about the true nature and value of a strong socialist influence on our capitalist system.  Because socialism is what provides the energy that keeps the wheels turning.
> ...



Without any society there is no need for capitalism.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Without any society you are rooting in the mud for dinner...


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > There is a proof. Now tell me, or show me, where The Constitution gives authority to Federal government to do any of what you said?
> ...



There is more then 10th Amendment. Almost every Amendment is about individual freedom and limiting powers of the government. Founding fathers didn't have a problem people being armed as well as the military because, unlike today's government, regardless if is left or right, they didn't see themselves as our rulers. Only those who rule have to worry about being overthrown, and they know that without guns that can't be done. 

Federalist paper #46: James Madison wrote that the reason the citizens are armed is to defend themselves, their families, neighborhoods, communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Short attention span? Read Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution. Enumerated powers of federal government. Do you see gun control there? I don't. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> There are registries of voters. Are they unconstitutional? Has anyone had their vote taken away because they are registered to vote? How is registering gun owners any different to registering voters?
> Onus remains on you to prove that it is unconstitutional.



Let me ask you... who keeps those registers, federal or state government?


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It can be found here in the Constitution:
> 
> 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. _Miller’s_ holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.'
> 
> ...



Huh? 

Historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Is that a law, or tradition?

There is also Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 that gives authority to Congress to authorize *privately owned armed ships* to make war on the enemies of the United States. Basically, according to The Constitution, you can have dangerous and unusual weapons such as battleship, or tank, or machine gun. The regulations of those weapons are again, by The Constitution, left to the states, as it should be.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> No....it isn't.  Registration of firearms is the first step to confiscation and banning....historically it has happened time and again...we are not going to let it happen......we will get more of our own justices now to tell you the way it will be...since that is now what the court is....



Leading cause of death in the past couple of centuries is democide. The 2nd Amendment is there to prevent that.


----------



## westwall (Jun 26, 2015)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...






It's not a contest.   At one time I had well over 500 firearms.   Now I'm down to a couple hundred.   I've kept the rare and unusual.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 26, 2015)

You can not have an honest debate with a far left drone, it is not possible.

They are wrong most of the time, yet can not admit it. They will still push a narrative now matter how many times has been debunked.

You can not have any real gun control with a wide open border..


----------



## westwall (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...







The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was a private artillery unit.  They saw service in every war we've been  in.


----------



## westwall (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...









Totally untrue.   Firearms were a way of life for everyone.  The sheer number of antique guns in collections proves the fallacy of your claim.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Registration of guns and licensing of gun owners are two sides of the same coin --  a precondition laid upon the exercise of the right not inherent to same; absent that inherent precondition, the state cannot create the plenary requirement for you to tell it when and how you will exercise your rights in order for you to then gain permission form the state to do so.



Every dictator did exactly that. Registration always leads to confiscation. Confiscation leads to extermination. For what other reason government would want to disarm its citizens? It's all matter of control.



> The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.


Those who wants to know who said it, google it.


----------



## MikeK (Jun 26, 2015)

westwall said:


> It's not a contest.   At one time I had well over 500 firearms.   Now I'm down to a couple hundred.   I've kept the rare and unusual.


While some might regard your appreciation of firearms as some sort of quirk, if I could afford to, and if I had the protected space, I think I would own a lot of guns, too.   Probably not five hundred, but quite a few.  

My father was a locksmith by trade but he also did very well as an sideline gunsmith, so my brother and I grew up around firearms and learned to appreciate the skill and ingenuity that devised and created them.  At one time I personally owned fourteen guns but lost interest in them as my interest in archery increased.  Now I'm down to just two, which I keep for personal defense, But I still enjoy going to the range now and then and making some noise.


----------



## westwall (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a contest.   At one time I had well over 500 firearms.   Now I'm down to a couple hundred.   I've kept the rare and unusual.
> ...









What is funny is that many of the largest gun collections are owned by the very people who want to deny their ownership to the poor and middle class.   Gun control IS class warfare.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Above the Constitution?  That's pretty vague.  I hope you're not talking about natural rights bestowed by God, because those aren't codified in law.  The Constitution is exactly what Second Amendment advocates need to rely on, we'd have nothing without it.



I think he was thinking of Declaration of Independence that led us to The Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."

The Constitution doesn't give right to life, otherwise we wouldn't have capital punishment, and we wouldn't be talking about abortions or euthanasia or self defense. What Constitution gives is Bill of Rights, or civil liberties, to live your life the way you want, to make your own choices, free from government. Those personal liberties are basically what makes life and if you have them, you also have a right to life.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

As has been stated, the Costitution and Bill of Rights don't grant us rights....we already have them....the Constitution and the Bill of Rights simply list those rights for easy recall......for those statists  who just don't understand that concept.....


----------



## MikeK (Jun 26, 2015)

2aguy said:


> You realize the country didn't get out of the Depression..right?  That what he did deepened and lengthened the depression.   Had he just let the economy work...we would have been out of the depression long before World War 2.  Raising taxes, raising tarrifs, screwing with the economy and wasting tax money....wrecked any chance at coming out of the depression....


You can keep believing that if you wish to but the fact is FDR pulled the Nation out of the Depression by the simple trick of redistributing some of the wealth hoarded by a small percentage of individuals -- a situation which is rather similar to that which exists today.  He did it by creating _make-work_ programs, which put money in the pockets of millions, who spent it, which created businesses, which in turn created more jobs, which in turn created an industrial revolution and gave rise to the Middle Class that I watched take form. 

I wish my father, my mother, and my aunts and uncles were still alive and able to talk to you about those Depression years and how FDR managed to turn them around.  I lived through it, too, but while I was too young to understand what was happening I do have vague recollection of how the People loved and praised FDR. 

It is important to understand that today's wealth-hoarders, the Kochs and a growing legion of multi-billionaires, are vigorously determined to disseminate anti-socialist propaganda, to fabricate lies and to distort history for the express purpose of avoiding another cycle of redistribution -- which is desperately needed to revive the American economy and re-energize the Middle Class.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You realize the country didn't get out of the Depression..right?  That what he did deepened and lengthened the depression.   Had he just let the economy work...we would have been out of the depression long before World War 2.  Raising taxes, raising tarrifs, screwing with the economy and wasting tax money....wrecked any chance at coming out of the depression....
> ...




What part of that high unemployment rate that was over 17 % after years of his mess is geting past you....?  Taking money from one person and just giving it to another to spend does not stimulate an economy...getting out of the way of people who know how to make things creates actual jobs and creates real money....that ends a depression....my Grandparents lived through the depression and bought the FDR hagiography...but he was an asshole....who wrecked the economy and kept it wrecked.....

Your teachers are evil.....do not listen to them....they are either lying to you or they have no clue about the truth....


You have been told the truth,, now go and discover it for yourself...or you will just be another statist slave....


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Come on guys, stay on topic. Gun control.

Now, since you mentioned FDR, he also tried a gun control. As typical progressive (equivalent to European communist at the time), he wanted to control everything, so why not to control guns. In 1938 Congress legislated that gun dealers had to obtain a Federal Firearms Licenses and maintain names and addresses of those they sold their weapons to. I guess he knew his policies were not working very well.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You realize the country didn't get out of the Depression..right?  That what he did deepened and lengthened the depression.   Had he just let the economy work...we would have been out of the depression long before World War 2.  Raising taxes, raising tarrifs, screwing with the economy and wasting tax money....wrecked any chance at coming out of the depression....
> ...




They don't hoard wealth...they invest it in businesses that create jobs and make more money......you are being lied to......take a chance....read Hayek's Raod to Serfdom,  Bastiat's The Law....Von Mises.....Rand.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Come on guys, stay on topic. Gun control.
> 
> Now, since you mentioned FDR, he also tried a gun control. As typical progressive (equivalent to European communist at the time), he wanted to control everything, so why not to control guns. In 1938 Congress legislated that gun dealers had to obtain a Federal Firearms Licenses and maintain names and addresses of those they sold their weapons to. I guess he knew his policies were not working very well.




I agree but someone this confused needs guidance...on the spot...and when he grows up and realizes his mistake...just like Thomas Sowell did, then he can thank me later....

Oh Yeah...Read Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams....and Read and watch Milton Friedman...see the Milton Friedman youtube video when he was on the phil donahue show.....that was great...


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Missed the history classes in high school? Citizens did have those weapons, government even hire them to wage war on Barbary pirates. Also reading the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of The Constitution could help.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 27, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Ok, you have no suggestions or goals.  You just wanted to make a point having nothing to do with the thread.  Consider it made.



I have plenty of suggestions. You could go an read my post where I made plenty of suggestions.

However for some reason no one chose to respond to my suggestions at all. 

What I was doing was getting past first base in which some people seemed to have a problem with what was being spoken about. So that was clarification. 

I take it you agree with me.


----------



## ErikViking (Jun 27, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> ErikViking said:
> 
> 
> > They will not be issued equipment? Any equipment issued will be taken back if the condition of mental stability isn't met.
> ...



Yes, I know, I misunderstood. The problem isn't  to get the right people guns, it's to prevent the wrong people to get them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 27, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



And the first part of my question was that whether you agree or not. So, again, I take it you agree with everything I have said.

Now, you can go look at post 149 where I made suggestions on how to reduce gun violence

Honest and open debate on gun control Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It's here in case you're too lazy to go look for yourself.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 27, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Short attention span? Read Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution. Enumerated powers of federal government. Do you see gun control there? I don't. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.



You gun fetishists really don't have a clue!

Even the wording of the 2nd Amendment includes the term "well regulated" which gives the government the constitutional right to pass gun control laws.

Your ignorance of the Constitution is staggering.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 27, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > There are registries of voters. Are they unconstitutional? Has anyone had their vote taken away because they are registered to vote? How is registering gun owners any different to registering voters?
> ...



What difference does that make? State governments are no different in principle to the federal government.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 27, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> There is also Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 that gives authority to Congress to authorize *privately owned armed ships* to make war on the enemies of the United States. Basically, according to The Constitution, you can have dangerous and unusual weapons such as battleship, or tank, or machine gun. The regulations of those weapons are again, by The Constitution, left to the states, as it should be.



Utter nonsense!

You are taking that provision completely out of context.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 27, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> You gun fetishists really don't have a clue!
> 
> Even the wording of the 2nd Amendment includes the term "well regulated" which gives the government the constitutional right to pass gun control laws.
> 
> Your ignorance of the Constitution is staggering.



You took two words out of whole amendment. Well regulated what??? Well regulated militia, you idiot.

"A *well regulated militia* being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You can't read? Why militia is needed? It also says in the text.

"A well regulated militia *being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

For security of a free state. Free from tyrannical government.

You misses this part... People have a right to keep and bear arms.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people to keep and bear arms* shall not be infringed."

And finally part that you statists keep ignoring, the federal government have no right to mingle with that right.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.*"

Which part of "shall not be infringed" you do not understand?

So you only see two words, well regulated... those two words are all you care about. Those two words gave you all the knowledge you need about The Constitution. Have you read the rest of it? Not important...

But what The Constitution says about "well regulated". Have you check maybe Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 where Constitution gives Congress the authority to demand that able bodied males be armed. Here is some reading material for you... Library of Congress.
Congress passed the law that required all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 27, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask you... who keeps those registers, federal or state government?
> ...



This is fucking hilarious.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > There is also Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 that gives authority to Congress to authorize *privately owned armed ships* to make war on the enemies of the United States. Basically, according to The Constitution, you can have dangerous and unusual weapons such as battleship, or tank, or machine gun. The regulations of those weapons are again, by The Constitution, left to the states, as it should be.
> ...








No he's not.   The context is correct.   The US government had a very  small  standing army so relied on the citizenry to make up the difference.  That included artillery. 

You can certainly whine that you don't agree but the facts are against you.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 27, 2015)




----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 27, 2015)

Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;



Ame®icano said:


> Short attention span? Read Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution. Enumerated powers of federal government. Do you see gun control there? I don't. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.



Simply because something is not explicitly stated does *NOT* make it unconstitutional. Only the ignorant home schooled gun fetishists could come up with such inane drivel. 

Moving on! 

After your subsequent moronic rant, which was risible, you are the gall to ask this question;



Ame®icano said:


> Which part of "shall not be infringed" you do not understand?



Do you see the irony? Of course you don't. That would require intelligence which doesn't exist amongst gun festishists like you and your obsessed ilk.

That term does not mean what you imagine it means. Gun control regulations do *NOT* infringe upon your right to own a gun. They merely *REGULATE* your ownership of a gun. 

But you already proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are utterly clueless as to what regulations entail so there is no point in wasting any time trying to educate the terminally obtuse. 

Thanks for disqualifying yourself from the OP by demonstrating that you are incapable of engaging in an open and honest debate about gun control.

Have a nice day.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Really?  There is one thing that is specifically enumerated and that is "shall not be infringed" which makes the rest of your post moot.

Good day!


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well then.....you must agree that requiring black people to pay poll taxes and pass literacy tests did not infringe on their right to vote either, since all they had to do was pay the tax and pass the test....right moron?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 27, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




explain it weirdo


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.



1. Make people responsible for their guns.  As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him.  They also should have known him to be a psycho.  Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all.  If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.  If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception.  This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2.  You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 28, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;
> Simply because something is not explicitly stated does *NOT* make it unconstitutional. Only the ignorant home schooled gun fetishists could come up with such inane drivel.



Based on intensity of your insults, it seems you're losing it. Calm down kid.

Article 1, Section 8 states Congress powers. Then there is 10th Amendment that says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Read it couple of times and let it sink in.



Derideo_Te said:


> After your subsequent moronic rant, which was risible, you are the gall to ask this question;
> 
> Do you see the irony? Of course you don't. That would require intelligence which doesn't exist amongst gun festishists like you and your obsessed ilk.



Typical liberal. When losing, throw more insults.



Derideo_Te said:


> That term does not mean what you imagine it means.



Why dont you explain what infringe means?



Derideo_Te said:


> Gun control regulations do *NOT* infringe upon your right to own a gun. They merely *REGULATE* your ownership of a gun.



The Congress has *no jurisdiction* over individual rights. Congress cannot make laws that do not involve enforcing their enumerated powers. How individuals keep and bear arms is not an enumerated power and is therefore out of their control. Btw, where does it say that well regulated militia is to be regulated by federal government? It could just mean regulated my the militia itself. 

Read this few times and let it sink in.


Derideo_Te said:


> But you already proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are utterly clueless as to what regulations entail so there is no point in wasting any time trying to educate the terminally obtuse.
> 
> Thanks for disqualifying yourself from the OP by demonstrating that you are incapable of engaging in an open and honest debate about gun control.
> Have a nice day.



More insults, how childish of you.

Listen kiddo, I've seen homeless shouting at pigeons making more sense then you and yet you decided to disqualify me from debate. In couple of years, when you mature, you'll be able to realize that your inferiority complex is fully justified. The only worse than that is to remain liberal.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...




the shooter broke state laws having a firearm 

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law 

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...





> They also should have known him to be a psycho.



Really....when trained professionals miss these guys all the time...?  The untrained, people in the middle of a family situation with a loved one should know how to diagnose a threat level.....really?



> If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.



Did you think this one thru.....so you have a criminal break into your home and steal your property....your guns, and commits a crime with them...you didn't commit the crime and in fact are a victim of a crime...but now you are held responsible.....care to rethink that?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




or stole his car 

and robbed a bank 

should freewill do the time


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Yes, really.  Who is going to know him better?

Keep your guns safely stored, that is the point.  Why should someone lose a loved on because a person can't properly control their weapons?   Don't want the liability of owning a gun, then don't own a gun.  And I say that owning guns.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



Cars are not used usually used to kill folks.  But I would say if you leave your keys in the car.....well a person doing so just ain't that smart. I am really at a lost to understand your problem with a person having to control their guns.


----------



## pwjohn (Jun 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.



Why is gun control so important to you and what laws would you like to see passed that might lead to improved firearm safety?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




of course the same as any other straw purchaser 

it is reasonable to expect that dad would know his kid is under federal charges


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




cars are property the same as a firearm  either can be used for good or bad

leaving the keys may be careless and merit getting pinched by the cops

in some places it is crime to leave your keys in the car

but what about the person who does everything by the book

and still has property stolen that is later used in a crime

should they still be held responsible for that crime


on the side i would say that guns are not *"usually used to kill folks"* considering the number of guns -the number of people who have guns -verses the number of murders


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...


Someone steals your car, you're responsible for the people he runs over?
How does this prevent criminals from getting a gun?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Let's begin with this absurdly ignorant claim of yours;
> ...


He's only here to troll you -- he knows he argues from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2015)

pwjohn said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...


I'm sorry...  I don't see a sound response.   Please try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 28, 2015)

421 posts, no sound response.
Huh.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd. 

Frankly, it's going to shortly be an absolutely moot point - 3D printed firearms - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd.
> 
> Frankly, it's going to shortly be an absolutely moot point - 3D printed firearms - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




--LOL

hillary claims that she is going to make it an issue 

in her campaign 

--LOL

indeed i certainly hope so


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




Actually, no.  You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault.  The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




the dad is only guilty of his own crime 

giving a firearm to a person with pending felony charges


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




We are fully on board with controlling our guns....neither one of the points you made addresses that....you brought up someone stealing a gun....you have no control over that if you don't just leave them on your front lawn, or having to know that your kid is actually going to go and murder innocent people.....

that isn't controlling your gun, that is blaming gun owners so that you can punish them for the act of wanting to own guns......


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




If the dad knew he was under charges, but not convicted do you know he knew that that meant 1) That the law made it illegal to own a gun, and that assumes the dad gave the gun to the kid, which at this point is not a fact and 2) that he gave the gun to the kid and not just gave him money....which he may have done because he knew his son was living on the floor of a trailer of one of his friends......?


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Where did I say a word about grabbing guns?  Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



I have no real idea what the dad knew but what we do know is that the kid showed a whole lot of signs of not playing with a full deck.  It is not like he was a alter boy and then just went on a murderous rampage.  Some how, some way we should at least TRY to stop these idiots from getting guns.  And stopping them does not stop you.  The only real way of ever doing so is make someone responsible.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Yep, scare those who are not sure they are responsible enough to control their guns.  Have a friend who owned a lot of guns and was not shy about telling people about his guns and what he would do if someone tried to steal them.  All his guns were stolen.  Now they are out there ready to do harm, because that is in reality is the only function of a gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




I agree....but we have to be very careful.  Anti gun extremists will use mental health information on background checks as an excuse to keep normal, law abiding gun owners from keeping their guns.   And not all shooters show signs of violence before they go on the attack.  The gun grabbers will use any leeway to keep anyone who has seen a grief counselor,  a school psychiatrist or any number of other regular mental health professionals to designate normal people unfit to own weapons, it is the way they think and a tactic they will use.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




No, the function of a gun is to save the life of the user, and often it doesn't even have to be fired to do that.  And how is your friend responsible again?  His guns were stolen...right?  Did he have them on his own private property, in his own home....or did he just leave them lying in the middle of the street?


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



What reaction do you think people should have to situations like Charleston, school shooting, the shooting in the movie theater, or any of the other seemingly random acts of murder using at least handguns?   Such awful needless loss of innocent life and you expect people to shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do?   What do you suggest be done?  And saying arming everyone is not, in my opinion an answer, because, believe it or not most people, in my opinion don't have what it takes to kill someone.  Worse yet they may lack the ability.

So you name something you would do, which could be do nothing because you don't see a problem.  What I suggested both allows you to own a gun and puts the ownership and responsibility for that gun on the proper person, the owner.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



What if my friend would have just given a felon a gun, would you think him any way responsible for what happens with that gun?

What if he left the gun out on his porch and it was stolen?

What if he just had them stock piled in his house?

Where is the line drawn?  The easiest place is, you bought it you own it.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



If you are going to discuss this then let us be honest.  Whether a gun is used to "save a life" by taking another life or used to commit a crime the function still is to do damage.  It serves no other purpose.  The only way a gun can be used for protection without actually using it is to convince the target that you are willing to shoot them.  Otherwise you might as well be holding a carrot.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




No the responsilbility for a gun used in a crime is the person who used the gun in a crime....

What would I do?  I would increase sentences for people who use guns to commit crimes or felons caught in possession of a gun.  We have too many cases of criminals with histories of violence and weapons getting short sentences, coming out and murdering people.  We have had that repeatedly, and prosecutors use weapons charges as bargaining chips and too easlily divert weapons offenses committed by violent career criminals into "boot camps" and short prison time.

I would repeal gun free zones.  It has been shown that these criminals target areas where they know the people will be disarmed.  There are several cases of these guys stating in pre shooting diaries of how they made their choice.  Allowing people to carry their weapons with them will create an unknown for these shooters and will add an element of protection to those areas.  

I would increase the jail time for anyone who knowingly PURCHASES a gun when they are a convicted criminal or otherewise can't legally own a gun...that way you don't scoop up or target innocent people who are unfamiliar with gun laws......and you actually punish the one person who knows for sure they can't own a gun.

Straw purchasing is already illegal...and if someone wants you to buy a gun for them because they can't......you pretty much know you are breaking the law....but selling a gun to someone.....not the crime the anti gun extremists want it to be.....arrest and jail the guy who buys the gun knowing he can't.....


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd.
> ...



Laugh all you want, but the reality is that the /only/ way for the government to prevent 3D firearms is to completely restrict /all/ internet in the US (and abroad for those who travel)  And if you look into software piracy you'll see just how difficult it is to stop - you wonder why MS Windows has authorization and shit, that's why.

You could repeal the 2nd and remove all guns from the country, but if you think gangs, drug dealers, and other criminals are not going to spend the money on a 3D printer to print their own arms in that case you're not facing reality.  They expect the price of 3D printers to be in range of even the middle class within a couple years, if not sooner.  EVEN if we don't pass any gun control arms, these fuckers are going to be doing it - we have laws on the books regulating 3d printing of firearms already (have to put a plate in it so it's metal detector visible) but the gov knows that's not going to cut it.  I think it's part of why they passed that internet gun discussion shit not to long ago; the one that prevents you from "sharing" manufacturing techniques online.  Not that it'll stop them, some fucker out there will virtually construct one and sell the plans on the pirate underground for billions.

The guy in Japan already did it, maybe we should collaborate with them as to how they are thinking to prevent it from happening again and see if there's a way we can fit that idea into our laws (unlikely considering Japan pretty much makes you give your SSN to use the internet heh)


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




If he knew the guy was a felon...yes...that is against the law...I just posted about my approach on this...the felon knew...so we punish him...a lot.......

If the gun is left on the porch...I might be able to work with you here.....but if a criminal takes it, again, they know they can't own it or possess it right now......

Stock piled in his house....who cares....it is his private property...guns stores are robbed all the time.

the easiest place is not you bought it you own it....that punishes the law abiding and ignores the criminal defeating your whole point...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Freewill said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




but the purpose is to keep the owner safe.  Again, it doesn't need to actually be fired to do that does it...since most self defense encounters end with the criminal running away or being held by the victim for police.....and even when it is fired, most of the time the criminal is just injured and not killed.   So you are wrong on that point.

And it has many uses besides self defense.....competition and hunting are very popular.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...




The really big growth sector for 3d guns.....once again...criminals...and the government can't stop them now.....how will they stop 3d printing gun builders for criminal and terrorist organizations?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...




They will never ever be able to stop criminals from getting guns....but....they can keep law abiding people from owning guns by passing laws......and that is why they target the law abiding.....


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Truth.  I almost bought one of these things to make gismos for computer mods and stuff; was only like $3k but I know the price is going to drop so I'm waiting.  I'm really excited for the technology over-all.  That said, a friend of mine bought one and has already designed and printed a bunch of stuff, she said it can do pretty much anything you could imagine [if you know how to do CAD.]


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



And when criminals steal the printers...the price for them is $0......so yeah...the government is going to have a gun problem bigger than they have today....


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



mmm I hadn't considered that yet, but yea...

We should really focus on making the criminal system work.  I was thinking about it earlier when the thread was discussing prison.  Why do we have "sentence lengths"?  Money.  And wondering if we'd be better of to change the policy to when they are actually safe to put back into society rather than a set amount of time.  Hell that might even be more "frightening" to criminals to know they'd be stuck in there until they proved they weren't a social liability.  I think it'd also have an impact on prison gang shit.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Someone steals your car, you're responsible for the people he runs over?
> How does this prevent criminals from getting a gun?



Man, it doesn't make sense that only you're responsible. Your parents should take most of responsibility for having you, and doctors and nurses in hospital where you were born. They all could have prevent it.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 421 posts, no sound response.
> Huh.



Funny, you said 421 posts, but your post is #419. Is something missing?

I guess some idiot was making fool of himself again...


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I don't think he knows that...


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> The really big growth sector for 3d guns.....once again...criminals...and the government can't stop them now.....how will they stop 3d printing gun builders for criminal and terrorist organizations?



If is up to liberals, only police and military should have 3D printers.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> And when criminals steal the printers...the price for them is $0......so yeah...the government is going to have a gun problem bigger than they have today....



Then the person that 3D printer is stolen from will be held responsible. Right Freewill?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you have no suggestions or goals.  You just wanted to make a point having nothing to do with the thread.  Consider it made.
> ...



I saw no suggestions at all.  It's possible I missed them.  But I also didn't see you respond to my post, so let me reiterate what I expect to see in terms of any suggestions to limit my rights:

1)  State the goal
2)  State the suggestion
3)  Show how the suggestion will actually achieve the goal


----------



## Kosh (Jun 28, 2015)

I see the far left on this thread still pushing the far left religious agenda not based on any facts.

As I already pointed out, you can not have an honest and open debate with the far left drones, it is not possible.

How can one have any gun control with an open border..


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

Kosh said:


> I see the far left on this thread still pushing the far left religious agenda not based on any facts.
> 
> As I already pointed out, you can not have an honest and open debate with the far left drones, it is not possible.
> 
> How can one have any gun control with an open border..




Easy...you pass laws that make guns illegal...then law abiding, peaceful, good people will obey that law....the criminals won't , but the anti-gun extremists don't care about criminals getting guns.....


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I read it.  There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread.  You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited.  Your argument had no connection to your suggestions. 

But, if it will help.  I have no problem with what you are suggesting.  I just see no relevance to this thread.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

I've been pondering this and I just do not think we can resolve our issues with simple gun control.  The gun issues we have are (let me know if I missed any):

Suicide - which is best addressed with psychological assistance as best we can and/or we can let adults have a more dignified way out like assisted suicide.

Accidents - which are best addressed by gun education; if we do that in school (not loaded or anything) then those children will grow up and teach their kids and we'll be back to how it /used/ to be in the old days. 

Crime - which is the real bugger of course.  I think that's going to take a multi-pronged attack that combines pretty much everything; employment, welfare, parenting, and punishment.  Probably would have to involve the police in some ways. Repealing the war on drugs. Reassessing sentencing, how repeat offenders are handled, etc.

I'm going to tag in a "sub-crime" category which I think is best called "terrorism" - this would be gangs, political extremists, etc.  Which we'd have to address with similar things as crime, but also the psychological stuff.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



*Why do we have "sentence lengths"?  Money.  And wondering if we'd be better of to change the policy to when they are actually safe to put back into society rather than a set amount of time.*

do away with the parole system 

do the whole length of time for the offense 

if there is a repeat double the time sitting in the pen


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



aint happening none of it 

3d printers to homemade slam fires 

they are here to stay


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> I've been pondering this and I just do not think we can resolve our issues with simple gun control.  The gun issues we have are (let me know if I missed any):
> 
> Suicide - which is best addressed with psychological assistance as best we can and/or we can let adults have a more dignified way out like assisted suicide.
> 
> ...




Our gun murder rate and our gun accident rate are falling and at the lowest level yet....as more Americans buy, own and carry guns.....


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 28, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 421 posts, no sound response.
> ...



Here we go, just as I thought...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 28, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Post 149. Jeez, I've posted that I wrote this three times now and still no replies to it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 28, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> I read it.  There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread.  You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited.  Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.
> 
> But, if it will help.  I have no problem with what you are suggesting.  I just see no relevance to this thread.



Flipping hell. 

So what you're suggesting is this. That you want people to come up with ways of taking guns away from people without taking guns away from people? So, you sit there thinking yourself superior because no one can do something that is impossible? Right? So this is all a waste of time?

Actually we're talking about gun control in another sense. I get that you don't get it. If you want to reduce gun crime (I'm not sure many people actually do) then there are ways to do it without even getting near guns. 

It's gun control. It's controlling how people use guns. It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.

You're thinking very simplistically. I'm thinking pro-actively. But then the right doesn't seem so interested with pro-active. 

I'm sorry you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry thousands of people will die because too many people don't get what I'm saying. You don't have any answers as to how to reduce gun violence. I do. You dismiss them, fine. You have to put up with thousands on people getting killed, maybe one of them will be you or a member of your family or a friend of yours. 

The point about what the 2A means was in response to the argument of whether fully automatic weapons were protected by the 2A or not. They're not. So, you can ban fully automatic weapons without infringing on the rights protected in the 2A. 

I made my point. You don't get it, I understand this. It was a separate issue.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 28, 2015)

*It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.*

absurd 

plenty of educated people have committed horrendous crimes


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 
I read it.  So let's start from the beginning....   What is the goal?  What is it you are trying to achieve?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > I read it.  There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread.  You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited.  Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.
> ...




And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available?  Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > I read it.  There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread.  You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited.  Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.
> ...


 
This is the definition of "pro-active" - doing anything you can think of when you can't think of anything useful to do.  That fits your position perfectly.

I am not looking for ways to take guns away from people.  I am looking for solutions that actually work.  I have yet to hear a single suggestion that works.  Now you have suggested improvements in education to reduce the number of "bad guys".  Hell, I'm all for improving our education system.  But what exactly does that have to do with taking guns away from people?  There is no connection.  There are lots of suggestions I could make to improve our justice system, reduce the amount of crime, etc. but not a single one of them has anything at all to do with the 2nd amendment.  And since this thread is about the 2nd amendment, it seems pointless to bring them up here.

So I assume you agree with me that limiting access to guns is a useless exercise.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...




Why do left wing people want gun control? They want gun control because the murder rate is WAY too high for a first world country. You look at countries like the UK, where guns are generally controlled though people can get guns, just not so easily and you have to have a license which isn't as easy to get as in the US, the murder rate is 1/4 that of the US. Why is that? 

One of the first instincts of the left is to blame guns. The right say "guns don't kill people, people do". 

So if it is really the people who kill and not the guns, then you need to start with the people.

Who is more likely to kill someone? 

I'm going to say someone who is less educated is more likely to kill someone (this isn't me saying higher educated people don't kill people and it's not me saying lower educated people will kill someone. I'm saying an individual who is liable to kill someone is more likely to do so if they get a poorer education than if they got a better education), and also someone earns less money and has less opportunities is more likely to kill someone, and someone who has a higher degree of mental issues and problems is more likely to kill someone.

So, three topics. 

https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0351.pdf

This is for prisoners under sentence of death. It's what I could find, it presents a little of what I'm trying to say.

In 2009 176 of the 3,173 prisoners sentence to death had less than 7 years of schooling. 1,097 had 12 years, 238 had more than 12 years. So, about 1/3 of death row prisoners had 12 years or more of education. That means about 2/3 didn't. 

This doesn't tell us the quality of the education, but you can see that many people who end up on death row haven't finished education. They don't have the opportunities afforded to those who have finished education. 

1,393 of these were black people. Black people suffer poverty far more than white people. 7% of white people compared to 25% of black people are in poverty. So, poverty also increases the chances someone who might kill others will kill others. 

US Prisons Home to 10 Times as Many Mentally Ill Al Jazeera America

"There are 10 times more mentally ill Americans in prisons and jails than in state psychiatric hospitals, a report published Tuesday found — adding that those individuals’ conditions often deteriorate while they are incarcerated."

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf

"At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates."

Why so many people with mental health problems in prison? Well, because they're not treated so the state spends more money locking them up than they would have done had they spent it on mental health care. 

Okay, so three problems that cause crime, that cause murders, that just cause society problems. 

What's the solution? Take guns away from such people? Sure, it might help. Sometimes such people go crazy for a short period of time. With a gun they kill, with a knife maybe not, with no weapon they almost certainly won't.

However the OP was based around not taking away guns from society.

So how do you deal with this? Well you solve many of the problems that put people in a bad situation in the first place. The US is a bad place to grow up in a poor neighborhood, especially if you're in an inner city area. Education is often extremely poor, opportunities are bad. A cycle of poverty based around poor education is leading to more divorces among poor people which in turn leads to kids being left alone and searching for family elsewhere, like in gangs, and so on.

Unless people start have a pro-active approach to educating children from all parts of society to become decent adults with plenty of work potential and the education to make it happen and an education that allows them to be health individuals, then the US will continue to have massive gun problems.

So, I'd say this is gun control, of sorts.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 
So you agree that gun control is useless.  As I said, I'm all for improving education.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available?  Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.



Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them. 

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang. 

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea. 

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them? 

I mean, you want to shoot a deer, a fully automatic isn't really the answer, is it?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> So you agree that gun control is useless.  As I said, I'm all for improving education.



No, that's not what I'm saying. 

I'm saying in light of the OP, education would be a good choice in helping to reduce gun crime, seeing as banning guns is not an option.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Again, you're being obtuse. It doesn't help your cause at all.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > So you agree that gun control is useless.  As I said, I'm all for improving education.
> ...


 
That sounds like what you are saying to me.  Education may well reduce crime.  Frankly, I think repealing all drug laws would reduce it a heck of a lot more and certainly remove a major money source for criminal gangs.  But you are clearly agreeing that gun control won't do it.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 
No.  You are being irrational.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



No, I'm not saying taking guns away from people wouldn't do it. I think taking guns away from people could reduce the murder rate quite a bit. However I think education is also a great idea for helping society in general. 

I don't ever thing one thing will suddenly solve all the problems.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...



Do you want a slagging match or something?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available?  Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.
> ...





> Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.



No....fully automatic weapons aren't used because pistols are much easier to conceal and if they wanted fully automatic rifles they could get them just as easily as they get them in Europe which has stricter gun control laws than we do.



> However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.



Weapons are tightly controlled in Tunisia, and fully automatic weapons are illegal in Tunisia....and the reason so many were killed is because they were all disarmed.  IF the shooter had been shot at then lives would have been saved.



> Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.



the world was much more secure under Bush, libya gave up their WMD and was subdued, dittos Iraq, Afganistan and even Iran....now with everyone knowing how stupid and weak obama is we have chaos........



> The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?



Because they want them and have broken no laws.  We have mass transportation, so why do people need cars.  And on top of that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to arm the people to keep the government on good behavior., not hunting...if the military can have fully automatic weapons, then the people who own the military, the tax payers get them if they want them.  We don't serve the military, the military serves us.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




No...taking guns away from people doesn't decrease gun violence....a police state reduces gun violence or cultural pacifism like they used to have in Europe.  There are so many countries with extreme gun control including gun bans on possession by citizens that have gun murder rates far higher than we do.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Unless of course you have an umbrella with which to hide your fully automatic weapon, a la the guy from Tunisia. Oh, no, that would never happen. Only it did. 
So what if guns are banned in Tunisia, I hardly think it would be difficult for a person to actually get a gun in Tunisia. 

The world was more secure under Bush. Er..... without Bush ISIS might not have existed, the Madrid bombings, London bombings, Paris killing, and many other such attacks. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess, Syria is a mess, Egypt has been a mess, Libya is a bit of a mess, Tunisia is a bit of a mess.

But hey, this is getting off topic, we should just agree that you're looking through extremely rose tinted glasses.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> No...taking guns away from people doesn't decrease gun violence....a police state reduces gun violence or cultural pacifism like they used to have in Europe.  There are so many countries with extreme gun control including gun bans on possession by citizens that have gun murder rates far higher than we do.



Maybe you need to go look at murder statistics in countries which don't have guns as normal. You'll find the US is top on the list of murders for first world countries by a long way. 

Yes, there are countries with gun control who have higher murder rates. However they're not first world countries. If you can't figure out their problems, and not willing to understand them, then you'll simply come to the wrong conclusions. 

I was in South Africa last year many times. You go to a big city like Jo'burg, Pretoria, Durban etc, it'll scare the crap out of you. Guns exist, they don't need to be legal. It's Africa. The govt is corrupt, all politicians are on the take, more or less, education sucks, everything sucks, because the govt is working for the bank balances of themselves and not for the people. The big wild animals, like elephants etc, are dying out because of the govt.

To compare this situation to the US is ridiculous.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



isis grew because obama pulled our troops out...unlike any other place in the world, like Germany, Italy, Japan,.....we still have troops there from World War 2 and they are peaceful........Irag and Afghanistan were also stable.....it all fell apart after obama came in and started apologizing for the U.S.

The world has gone to shit under obama's management, not Bush's.....

If guns are banned in Tunisia, and Europe and their criminals and terrorists get them easily, you are just making the case that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No...taking guns away from people doesn't decrease gun violence....a police state reduces gun violence or cultural pacifism like they used to have in Europe.  There are so many countries with extreme gun control including gun bans on possession by citizens that have gun murder rates far higher than we do.
> ...




Sorry, that first world distinction does not work....you guys say if you put strict gun laws in place gun violence will go down......they have extreme gun control in most 3rd world countries and gun murder rates that are way beyond the U.S.....so gun laws aren't the issue....passive populations lead to lower crime rates in Europe, and Japan......

European criminals get guns easily, they just don't use them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> isis grew because obama pulled our troops out...unlike any other place in the world, like Germany, Italy, Japan,.....we still have troops there from World War 2 and they are peaceful........Irag and Afghanistan were also stable.....it all fell apart after obama came in and started apologizing for the U.S.
> 
> The world has gone to shit under obama's management, not Bush's.....
> 
> If guns are banned in Tunisia, and Europe and their criminals and terrorists get them easily, you are just making the case that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.



Are you freaking serious?

ISIS has been in development since the Soviets were in Afghanistan. They became far more adept at what they were doing with practice in Afghanistan after 2001 and then in Iraq from 2003 they were getting really good at it. 

Obama pulled out troops because BUSH signed the order and the Iraqs wanted the US out. 

The instability in Iraq started when Bremer A) got Bush to give him sole power in running the country and B) he disbanded the Iraqi army and police, making many men trying to make a living unemployed. The only people willing to employ them were insurgents. If you hadn't noticed Iraq was not stable from 2003 onwards. 

The world was going to shit from 2003 and the invasion of Iraq. To blame Obama shows you're just being partisan. 

Laws are law. In the US there are laws preventing people from land locked states from whale hunting. Many laws aren't enforced. A law is only as good as the enforcement that is put in place.

South Africa has guns, people need them, because laws are not enforced across the board. Go across the border to Mozambique or Zimbabwe, you don't need a gun, crime is not a problem. Why? Well in Mozambique the army/police are on the streets with guns and if you mess around you're going to get shot by the authorities. In Zimbabwe it's merely that Mugabe's in charge and you'll not get very far. 

You seem to like twisting everything you come across to fit your view of the world. 

You're talking about different countries as if you've actually been there and experienced what it's like and understood why things happen. But I get the distinct feeling you don't have a clue. And I'm not meaning this in a manner to insult, I'm tired and rubbish at writing, however this is my take on things.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Sorry, that first world distinction does not work....you guys say if you put strict gun laws in place gun violence will go down......they have extreme gun control in most 3rd world countries and gun murder rates that are way beyond the U.S.....so gun laws aren't the issue....passive populations lead to lower crime rates in Europe, and Japan......
> 
> European criminals get guns easily, they just don't use them.



"you guys", what do you mean "you guys"? 

You need to understand the difference between different countries before you come on here telling me stuff you seem not to understand. 

You think European criminals easily get guns then just don't use them? Are you being serious?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2015)

Freewill said:


> What reaction do you think people should have to situations like Charleston, school shooting, the shooting in the movie theater, or any of the other seemingly random acts of murder using at least handguns?


The same people that tell us to blame the extremists, not Islam, for 9-11?
Kinda answers itself, doesn't it?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 
Fine. 

In 1950, the gun murder rate was 5.1 per 100,000.  That was before all of the gun control legislation.  After the implementation of the major gun control laws including banning a lot of rifle types, the murder rate almost doubled.  Many of those laws have been toned down and a lot of prohibitions removed and the gun murder rate in 2010 was 5.3, essentially the same as it was before the gun laws.

So explain to me how gun law will reduce the murder rate.  Because the actual facts seem to indicate the contrary.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 
No.  I assumed you did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2015)

Freewill said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...


Someone steals your car, you're responsible for the people he runs over?
How does this prevent criminals from getting a gun?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2015)

485 posts...  no sound responses.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 485 posts...  no sound responses.



You forget who you're dealing with. Intellectually deficient liberals who respond with emotions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 29, 2015)

Lonestar_logic said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 485 posts...  no sound responses.
> ...


On the contrary...   I know -exactly- who I am dealing with.
They happily prove my point for me.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, that first world distinction does not work....you guys say if you put strict gun laws in place gun violence will go down......they have extreme gun control in most 3rd world countries and gun murder rates that are way beyond the U.S.....so gun laws aren't the issue....passive populations lead to lower crime rates in Europe, and Japan......
> ...




European criminals just don't use guns as often as our criminals do.....it is a feature of their criminal culture.  When they want to use guns, though, they get them easily, according to European law enforcement officials.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 29, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > isis grew because obama pulled our troops out...unlike any other place in the world, like Germany, Italy, Japan,.....we still have troops there from World War 2 and they are peaceful........Irag and Afghanistan were also stable.....it all fell apart after obama came in and started apologizing for the U.S.
> ...




Yes.....gun laws enforced by a police state...that works.  Look at Japan....they too have a police state.  And obama was't held to that agreement.....he didn't have to remove the troops he did so because he doesn't believe in the United States and it's role in keeping the peace.  So he pulled the troops before the job was done...again, we have troops in Germany, Japan, Italy......since World War 2 and Iraq and Afghanistan were stable as was the rest of the middle east.....then obama came in and now we have the nightmare...isis only made gains after the idiot pulled our troops out.    

Not partisan, honest and objective and able to see the real world, not a partisan view which you obviously have.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> European criminals just don't use guns as often as our criminals do.....it is a feature of their criminal culture.  When they want to use guns, though, they get them easily, according to European law enforcement officials.



Do you not think that the ease of getting guns in the US is part of the problem? How much would a gun cost in the US? How much would a gun cost in Europe?

I'm betting it's more expensive, and criminals are less likely to want to use their guns for fear of losing something expensive.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Yes.....gun laws enforced by a police state...that works.  Look at Japan....they too have a police state.  And obama was't held to that agreement.....he didn't have to remove the troops he did so because he doesn't believe in the United States and it's role in keeping the peace.  So he pulled the troops before the job was done...again, we have troops in Germany, Japan, Italy......since World War 2 and Iraq and Afghanistan were stable as was the rest of the middle east.....then obama came in and now we have the nightmare...isis only made gains after the idiot pulled our troops out.
> 
> Not partisan, honest and objective and able to see the real world, not a partisan view which you obviously have.



"he doesn't believe in the United States and it's role in keeping the peace." 

Are you kidding me? The US is the BIGGEST threat to global security in the world right now. They don't "keep the peace" in any sense of the word.

Have you heard of the Powell Doctrine? 

The only reasons the US will go to war are if:

1) US vital security interests are threatened. (there are others, I'm sure you know them) 

So, the first thing the US thinks about is whether the interests of the US are threatened. 

So, Iraq, well, OPEC was threatening US interests by being a cartel and pumping up oil prices at a time when the US wanted lower oil prices. 
Afghanistan was for various reasons, the first appeared to be to make Muslims the common enemy so the right could get everyone aboard their anti-Muslim program. 

Why not Syria? Well it's not OPEC. No one put enough effort in to suggest that the problems in Syria (a direct line from the instability in Iraq to the instability in Syria) would impact the oil situation in Iraq. 

The US is not the world's police. They didn't send troops into Mali. The French did. They didn't send troops into the Ukraine. 

Troops are sent ONLY where US interests are at stake. Generally this means OPEC countries.

Since 2001, when there were 4 OPEC countries that opposed the US, the US has managed to invade Iraq (OPEC), bomb Libya (OPEC), help a coup d'etat against Venezuela (OPEC) and put sanctions against Venezuela (Still OPEC), put sanctions against Iran (OPEC) and destabilise the Iranian economy and invade Afghanistan (not OPEC) but for reasons of vengeance against Bin Laden, though the fact that they asked the Afghan Taliban govt to hand bin Laden over and the Afghan Taliban govt didn't even say no, they asked the US to provide evidence against bin Laden as happens with most criminals being extradited. It was all part of the building up for the "War on Terror", Bush used al Qaeda and bin Laden as a way of vilifying Muslims and Islam, in order to make it easier for him to invade Iraq.

Powell Doctrine:
7) Is the action supported by the American people? 

Well the invasion of Iraq was. Why? Because Bush made out that Saddam was part of the "War on Terror", he was Muslims and the whole balls about WMD which was basically made up by his "intelligence" agents. 

In other news the US didn't invade Syria, it didn't sent troops to Mali, it didn't send troops to Kenya, it didn't send troops anywhere other than


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 30, 2015)

492 posts, no sound response.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 492 posts, no sound response.





399 of those posts has been the OP lying that there has been "no sound response" because he ignores all sound responses that he doesn't like thereby making a mockery of his own thread.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 30, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 492 posts, no sound response.
> ...


 
Nope.  There haven't been any.  I've been checking.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 30, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 492 posts, no sound response.



The sort of attitude which suggests the writer of the post is more interested in "winning" than actually debating.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 492 posts, no sound response.
> ...


 
Nothing to do with winning.  A point is being made.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Really? 

The point seems to be that the person writing it is interested in winning.

I've written plenty of stuff here. Everything I write seems to be discussed for a short time, then when people realise they aren't going to "win" they just ignore it. Then they turn around and say that there's no sound response.

As I've already said, you've set this up to be just that. Think of a way of taking guns away without taking guns away. I mean, are you efing serious? Who goes into a debate with a stupid statement like that?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


 
No.  The point is that not a single person has been able to show how any suggestion regarding the limitation of gun rights will impact gun crime in any way.  People have certainly said we should do this or do that, but not a one has said how that would impact the issue or provide any support for it.  In fact, the only detailed suggestions came from you and they had nothing to do with guns - you just tagged that we should limit guns as an after thought with no detail at all.  Oh, and one other gentleman who suggested general access to background check databases so someone can do a check at a garage sale.

If I'm wrong, point out the post.  But don't just say this is a set up because we don't acknowledge what isn't there.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> No.  The point is that not a single person has been able to show how any suggestion regarding the limitation of gun rights will impact gun crime in any way.  People have certainly said we should do this or do that, but not a one has said how that would impact the issue or provide any support for it.  In fact, the only detailed suggestions came from you and they had nothing to do with guns - you just tagged that we should limit guns as an after thought with no detail at all.  Oh, and one other gentleman who suggested general access to background check databases so someone can do a check at a garage sale.
> 
> If I'm wrong, point out the post.  But don't just say this is a set up because we don't acknowledge what isn't there.



Oh, I didn't realise you were using THAT duff argument. 

So, basically what you're trying to tell me is that until something has been proven it should not be implemented, but it can't be proven until it is implemented. 

People can show that reducing gun ownership massively can lead to lower gun crime. It's called every other first world country in the world. But then again the argument back will simply be "well that's not America" or, as I've seen lately "well this and that third world country has gun control and high murder rates" etc etc. 

You know, there are people who want to find the truth, and people who want to hide the truth. You seem to be the latter. Are you at all interested to know if gun control could work, or just interested in "proving" that gun control doesn't work? 

The big problem in the US is the whole culture. The whole gun culture that exists. Kids grow up with guns in society and this causes a massive impact. Guns are available. You don't need back ground checks, you don't need all of this, because you can just go rob someone's house and find their guns and take them for your own. And because guns are so normal, no one is going to batter an eye lid that you have a gun. 

Any gun control implemented needs to take into account that the US has such a gun mentality. Until you've gone through a generation of people who haven't grown up with guns, then you're not going to see a change.

But that's never going to happen. 

DC made strict gun laws. So what? You just go to Virginia and get yourself a gun, it's not hard, and it's not far away. 

In the UK if you want a gun without a license you're going to have to pay big money for the gun. Stealing one is a difficult option as they're not normal.

This is a very complex issue, one which is always going to get broken down and torn apart because you're always going to look for instant success or no not bother trying kind of attitude. 

And the fact that people keep coming on and saying "blah blah posts and still nothing" it's because you've set it up to be nothing. You set the limitations and ANYTHING that gets even close you slam down with your limitations.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 1, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > No.  The point is that not a single person has been able to show how any suggestion regarding the limitation of gun rights will impact gun crime in any way.  People have certainly said we should do this or do that, but not a one has said how that would impact the issue or provide any support for it.  In fact, the only detailed suggestions came from you and they had nothing to do with guns - you just tagged that we should limit guns as an after thought with no detail at all.  Oh, and one other gentleman who suggested general access to background check databases so someone can do a check at a garage sale.
> ...


 
Again, lots of claims and all unsupported.  And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights.  You want to make the change, not me.  It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.

So yes.....   blah blah posts and still nothing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 1, 2015)

501 posts...  no sound responses..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 1, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Again, lots of claims and all unsupported.  And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights.  You want to make the change, not me.  It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.
> 
> So yes.....   blah blah posts and still nothing.



No, the OP was " (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears."

So, the whole point of this is you can't do anything that infringes on the right to keep arms. So, it's not about showing that limiting rights is going to do anything at all. It's about whether not limiting right and implementing some kind of gun control is going to work.

So..... how can you limit guns without limiting guns? You tell me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 2, 2015)

9 days, more than 500 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 2, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Again, lots of claims and all unsupported.  And yes, I am using THAT duff argument that unless you can show that limiting my rights is going to do anything then I see no reason to limit my rights.  You want to make the change, not me.  It isn't my job to show it won't work, it's yours to show it will.
> ...



So.... if I am understanding you, you don't think it is possible prevent criminals from getting guns without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding.  Is that correct?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 2, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> So.... if I am understanding you, you don't think it is possible prevent criminals from getting guns without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding.  Is that correct?


That is -absolutely- correct.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 3, 2015)

10 days. more than 500 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 3, 2015)

At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jul 3, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.



That's very easy to say, but the reality is that not one single argument has been made which did not boil down to "we oughta just because".  Complaining that it isn't fair because you are expected to back up a statement is ridiculous.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 3, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > At some point the OP is going to realize that no one is buying his phony "honest and open debate on gun control" because they all see that he is simply not honest enough to have one in the first place.
> ...


Never mind that those putting up those arguments are doing so from ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 3, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Which just happens to be 100% of everyone who doesn't share your Gun Festish obsession in your delusional opinion.

Everyone else in the world is wrong but the OP!



Your thread is dying because you lack the honesty and integrity to actually have an "honest and open debate on gun control".

Gotta love the irony when an OP sets himself up for failure.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 6, 2015)

Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.


Careful what you ask for.  I just may take you up on it for the fun.

As with other products that when used carry large risk... guns owners should also be required to undergo testing and carry liability insurance for cases where the weapon is used in an un-responsible manner.  The testing should be rigorous and weed out insane people, as well as risks to society.  Since a death may be involved the amount of liability insurance should be significantly large.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Almost 2 weeks, 510 posts, no sound responses.
> ...


Such as....?
Looking for examples.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Driving a bus.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Do you need insurance to buy/own a bus?  To keep it in your barn?  To drive it across your yard?
Do you need a CDL to buy/own a bus?  To keep it in your barn?  To drive it across your yard?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Depends on the state and where your "barn" is.  Some states require proof to buy.  I'm sure if the bus is not drive-able you may be able to get a waiver for the pile of metal.  You are quibbling.  The place a BUS is used is the road.  The purpose to transport PEOPLE.  All of which require licensing and insurance.

Another example is your home.  To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.  Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.  For example, building a home on your property running electric, running plumbing, digging a well.  Your home is not without government regulations of all kinds.

Think of the gun as a piece of property that requires regulation for the varying purposes that you want it for.  Look at hunting... you have to have a license right?  Do you want to end hunting licenses?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


"Ownership" and "use" are different thing; you want to take a require a condition for use and apply it as a condition of ownership.   Apples/oranges.


> Another example is your home.  To live on certain properties requires insurance in some states esp. for areas of risk, such as flood plains.


This time, you're using a condition of a specific scenario to justify a condition for a general scenario/   Apples/oranges.


> Further, depending on your use of the property some uses require licensing by the state or other local communities.


Condition of use v condition of ownership.  Apples/oranges.

Now...
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?
How does any of this not qualify and a precondition on the exercise of a right not inherent to same -- that is, an infringement.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


You want to broad cast over the air?  You need a license for that.  But wait what about free speech?

You want to sell booze, or apples, or oranges?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to drive a car?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to carry a gun to defend yourself in public?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to dig for water?  You need a license for that.

You want to get married?  You need a license for that.

You want to go hunting with a gun?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want to keep a gun at home for self defense?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.

You want a non-functional gun for decorative purposes only?  No problem we'll fill the barrel with concrete for ya and file down the firing pin.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


License to use the assigned frequency, not to speak your mind.  Apples/oranges


> You want to sell booze, or apples, or oranges?  You need a license for that and liability insurance


Relevance?.


> You want to drive a car?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.


Use v ownership.   Apples.oranges


> You want to carry a gun to defend yourself in public?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.


Use v ownership.


> You want to go hunting with a gun?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.


Use v ownership


> You want to keep a gun at home for self defense?  You need a license for that and liability insurance.


Based on what you've argued so far, where is the precedent for the constitutionality to require a license and insurance for the basic exercise of a right?
How does any of this prevent criminals from getting guns?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Your argument is that there is a difference between use and ownership.  The self-defense use of any weapon is inherent.  If you are a collector prove you can eliminate the use of the weapon.  No different than proving the fully automatic capable weapon has been converted to semi-automatic.

Licensing and insuring your weapons is not infringing.

As for the point about criminals not getting a license or insurance... yes, that is correct criminals drive without a license and without insurance.  Does that mean we should stop licensing and insurance requirements for everything a criminal might do?

The prevention comes in the form of license checks.  Down the road we'll have devices on the firing system that requires an up to date license for the user.  Isn't tech wonderful.

As with hunting licenses, the forced licensing reduces the amount of use.  Reducing the amount of use reduces the amount of "first" crimes.  All criminals have their first crime.  If we have licensing, the first crime with a gun will be with one that is licensed in many cases.  Thus reducing first crimes due to the licensing requirement reducing how many non-criminals have them before their transition into a life of crime enabled by the use of guns..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Your argument is that there is a difference between use and ownership.


Correct.   All of your examples are of license and insurance required for use in the public arena.
Basic ownership/possession of a firearm is not use in the public arena - thus, apples v oranges.


> Licensing and insuring your weapons is not infringing.


They are a precondition laid upon the basic exercise of a right not inherent to same.  Thus, infringement.


> As for the point about criminals not getting a license or insurance... yes, that is correct...


OP Point (1):   Describe how your idea will prevent criminal from getting guns.
You admit that they will not.   Fail.[/quote]


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Your argument is that there is a difference between use and ownership.
> ...


You don't own the lives of the people you kill with your weapon on your private property.  The use of weapons is already licensed and for good reason.  While your private property is partially yours.  You don't own the policeman that enters it.   You don't own the air over it and in most cases you don't own the ground under it.  You should not be allowed to own anyone but yourself and after the 16th even that is no longer true.

I did not admit they will not.  You fail in your ability to read.  I'm making it harder to own weapons through expensive licensing and expensive insurance.  That will reduce "first" crimes.  Pay attn. please.

You are confused about the constitution.  Freedom from regulation of guns is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.  The right to keep and bear shall not be infringed... does not mean congress shall make no laws regarding... see the first amendment for that language regarding religion.  Thus the framers were leaving wiggle room for regulation so long as you could somehow still keep and bear.  The right of this government to make said ownership extremely hard has been upheld many times see restrictions on fully automatic weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> I did not admit they will not.


OK then...
How, specifically, does licensure of gun owners and liability insurance for owning a gun prevent criminals from getting guns?


> You are confused about the constitution. Freedom from regulation of guns is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.


They are a precondition laid upon the basic exercise of a right not inherent to same -  thus, an infringement.
How does the requirement for a license and insurance pass strict scrutiny?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I did not admit they will not.
> ...


The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny.   The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.  The same way all regulations pass strict scrutiny.  This government is allowed to tax the hell out of us for health care... (that is taxing you for the right to live)  ROFL what makes you think they won't and can't tax the hell out of you for your right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny.   The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.


In other words you do not have a sound argument to that effect.  Thank you.

You have failed to meet either point required in the OP.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > The same way current licensing passes strict scrutiny.   The same way sales taxes on guns passes strict scrutiny.
> ...


Bullshit.  Don't coward up.

You buy guns with money.  Government taxes your money.  Thus by your argument the mere act of having a tax is a barrier on gun ownership.  That is incorrect.  Government taxes on things like guns is commonplace and already legal.  Has been that way pretty much since the start.

Taxing a thing makes it more expensive to own. Thus reducing ownership.  Reducing ownership reduced first crimes.  Not to mention the licensing will carry with it education that will reduce crime and reduce accidental deaths.  Licensing taxing, making you carry liability insurance.  These are all common place things that do not stop you from keeping and carrying.  They merely make you have to work a bit for it.  The people who are too lazy to work for their rights... well then they can't exercise them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


If you believe you have soundly demonstrated  how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it.  Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Hint: Editing my posts by removing the arguments is not the same as rebutting them.  If you want to argue my points go ahead.  But going against forum rules by editing what I say is not gonna work for a debating tactic.  That only works in the main street media.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


If you believe you have soundly demonstrated  how your idea prevents criminals form getting guns and similarly illustrated how it passes strict scrutiny, I must have missed it.  Please feel free to copy and paste your arguments to that effect.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That's your job.  I made my posts you edited out the arguments..  Feel free to quote my posts in their entirety and argue what I said vs. the part that you felt was easy to argue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> That's your job.


On the contrary.
I asked for an example of gun control that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
You responded with the plenary licensing of gun owners and a plenary requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements will prevent criminals from getting guns.
-Nowhere have you soundly shown how these requirements - preconditions on the exercise of the right not inherent to same -- do not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Its your position; its up to you to support it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Yes...just like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements to vote...they don't keep you from voting but just make you work a bit for your right to vote.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > That's your job.
> ...


Here is the first argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED:  Every tax is a precondition to ownership.  Taxation is allowed.  Taxation is a regulation on sales.  Thus your argument is moot.  The constitution did not say free from regulation.  That was left to religion.  See first amendment. 

Here is the second argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED:  Every criminal has a first crime.  Taxation, licensing, costs of insurance are all barriers to purchasing weapons.  When less people have guns less people will have their first crime using guns.  Pure math.  If the odds of a first crime with a weapon are 1 in a thousand reducing the number of people with weapons via taxation will reduce the number of people that have a weapon.  For example, if the cost of ownership of a gun goes from 200 bucks to 2k dollars a year, the number of non criminals that have guns will be reduced by a significant percentage.  Let's say 1/10th the number of people would then have them.  Thus making the odds 1 in ten thousand for first crimes with a gun vs 1 in one thousand.  Same thing happens with health care or any market for that matter.  If it's expensive to have a thing the people having the thing is reduced.

Again completely ignoring arguments is not the same as rebutting them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Correct.  Thus the reason people have to come around and banned things like poll taxes and literacy tests and property requirements.  We don't have a ban on licensing requirements or insurance requirements on things like weapons, not to my knowledge.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Typical and customary state/local sales taxes on goods and services are, of course, constitutionally acceptable.

Levying a tax on the exercise of a right with the purpose of creating a burden on that exercise so as to limit the number of people who will exercise it is, obviously, not  - else, a $5000 tax on abortions, so as to reduce their number, seems fitting.

Never mind that said tax will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Agreed....we should therefore limit access to computers...fewer people with access to computers will limit identity theft.  We should limit the number of writers as well.....the fewer authors the fewer cases of "first" libel.......I see where you are going with this......we should limit the number of people who own cars....if fewer people own cars there will be fewer car accidents....but let's stick to Constitutionally protected rights.....With fewer journalists we again have fewer cases of libel and slander......

I like where this is going......everyone is a criminal...so we should limit their "first" potential to commit crime.........dittos for searches.....if we limit privacy rights we catch more "first" criminals before they commit crime....good idea......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




And that is why we need to end taxes on firearms.  Also we need to end fees for permits and training.....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


To quote myself:

Typical and customary state/local sales taxes on goods and services are, of course, constitutionally acceptable.
Levying a tax on the exercise of a right with the purpose of creating a burden on that exercise so as to limit the number of people who will exercise it is, obviously, not - else, a $5000 tax on abortions, so as to reduce their number, seems fitting.

Never mind that said tax will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Never mind that this has nothing to do with your idea of a plenary requirement for licenseure and liability insurance.


> Here is the second argument that YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED:  Every criminal has a first crime.  Taxation, licensing, costs of insurance are all barriers to purchasing weapons.


Only for the law abiding, at the cost of infringing their rights -- none of these thingd will prevent criminals from getting guns because criminals do not need to try to purchase their guns legally.

And so, you continue to fail to soundly illustrate how plenary licenseure and insurance requirements will prevent criminals from getting guns.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Careful what you ask for.  I just may take you up on it for the fun.
> 
> As with other products that when used carry large risk... guns owners should also be required to undergo testing and carry liability insurance for cases where the weapon is used in an un-responsible manner.  The testing should be rigorous and weed out insane people, as well as risks to society.  Since a death may be involved the amount of liability insurance should be significantly large.


Firearm ownership should be contingent on licensing.  And obtaining a license for every individual firearm owned should be contingent on demonstrating adequate knowledge of the function and necessary safeguards pertaining to the use, handling and storage of that weapon.  This requirement will substantially reduce the number of accidental shootings.

This licensing requirement should be administered by firearm dealers who must ascertain and certify that every purchaser is adequately knowledgeable and competent in the use and handling and safeguard of each specific firearm sold. 

This requirement is neither more imposing nor less necessary than that of obtaining a license to drive a car.  And obtaining the license would not take more than 15 - 30 minutes and would take place at the dealership prior to purchase of the weapon.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Firearm ownership should be contingent on licensing.  And obtaining a license for every individual firearm owned should be contingent on demonstrating adequate knowledge of the function and necessary safeguards pertaining to the use, handling and storage of that weapon.  This requirement will substantially reduce the number of accidental shootings.


How does a plenary requirement for licensure not infringe on the rights of the law abiding??
How does a plenary training requirement not infringe on the rights of the law abiding?
How do they, together or separately, prevent criminals from getting guns?


> This requirement is neither more imposing nor less necessary than that of obtaining a license to drive a car


You do not need a DL to buy, own or possess a car, keep it on your property, or use it on your property - how is your statement, above, relevant?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


We already have taxes on health care.  As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it.  You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face.  But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Firearm ownership should be contingent on licensing.  And obtaining a license for every individual firearm owned should be contingent on demonstrating adequate knowledge of the function and necessary safeguards pertaining to the use, handling and storage of that weapon.  This requirement will substantially reduce the number of accidental shootings.
> ...


Your argument is a false strawman.  You are essentially arguing that restricting use of a thing to a certain location is not a restriction.  Taxes, licensing, and insurance requirements are things the government does to regulate such things thing.  Get over it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


Incorrect.
As noted before, a DL is a requirement for use in the public space.   As such, the fact that a DL is necessary to use a car on public roads  in no way creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms at any, including its most basic, level.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Typical and customary state/local sales taxes on goods and services are, of course, constitutionally acceptable.
> ...


Show how this has any relevance to anything I just said.


> As for prevention... yes making a thing more expensive does prevent it. You can say it doesn't till you are blue in the face.  But if you can't afford a 10k machine gun you are not gonna get it.


And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


And a license to own a machine gun is a requirement for ownership.  That you can point out the fact that you can drive your car on your property without a license does not mean you will be able to own a gun in perpetuity without a license.  As you have clearly pointed out... apples and oranges.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Defending yourself from harm via weapon ownership or via purchasing health care.  You don't see the link?  Government can tax 100% of your income and take 100% of your assets.  I don't think you get it yet.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


There is no license requirement to own a machinegun.


> That you can point out the fact that you can drive your car on your property without a license....


Not just drive, but ny possess and keep a car. 
That I can soundly point this out  nullifies the point you were trying to make, that a licenseure requirement for a car creates a constitutionally acceptable justification for the plenary requirement to have a license in order exercise the right to arms.
Ownership v use in the public space.   Apples v oranges.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


That you believe the is a link between what I said and that the federal government can tax you if not do not buy health insurance only indicates you do not understand the argument put to you.

Left unconsidered by you:
And yet, criminals commonly get machine guns that would cost that much for the law abiding - if they can legally buy them at all.
So much for your argument


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes there is a license:
How to Get a Fully Automatic Gun License eHow

The second amendment is keep and CARRY.  You are quibbling about keeping a car as if that is somehow important that you only need a license to "USE" the car in public.  Again a car is not a gun.  Use of a car on private property is not the same as use of a gun on private property.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


My point was that there are no protections written into the constitution except for religion. Where the amendment clearly stated: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  Tax is a law... thus they can't tax religion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


No,.  
There isn't.   
Nowhere in the BATFE procedure for obtaining a NFA class III weapon are you issued a license for that weapon.   
Nowhere.


> You are quibbling about keeping a car as if that is somehow important that you only need a license to "USE" the car in public.  Again a car is not a gun.  Use of a car on private property is not the same as use of a gun on private property.


Correct.  Hopefully you now understand that the argument you tried to make here is unsound.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> My point was that there are no protections written into the constitution except for religion.


You're aware of the 2nd amendment, right?
Where the right to arms is protected from infringement, without regard to source or manner of same.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



On the second argument... if criminals are getting machine guns ... we need to elect leaders who will do their job instead of buying machine guns for criminals.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> So much for your argument


On the second argument... if criminals are getting machine guns ... we need to elect leaders who will do their job instead of buying machine guns for criminals.[/QUOTE]


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




My argument was sound.  The point was there are hundreds of products that are licensed.

You are wrong on machine guns. Here's the procedure:


> To purchase a transferable machine gun, you must meet certain requirements (generally the same as when you purchase another gun, but with additional scrutiny), fill out special paperwork (called a 'form 4'), and pay a $200, one-time, transfer tax. Every time a machine gun is transferred, the $200 tax must be paid-- usually by the purchaser. The steps to take to purchase a transferable machine gun are:
> 
> 1.Find a dealer locally who can assist you in all phases of the transfer. This should go beyond helping you fill out the paperwork: they should help you locate the gun if it isn't in stock and allow you to shoot the gun while your paperwork is being processed by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). It will usually take 4-6 weeks for the dealer to get the gun from another dealer if they don't already have it in stock (due to BATF paperwork delays).
> 
> ...



The tax stamp is the license.  Much like the tax stamp for a buck when hunting.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Correct.  Hopefully you now understand that the argument you tried to make here is unsound.
> ...


How many of them involve the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected from infringement by the constitution?
None?
Thank you.


> The tax stamp is the license.


No.  Its not.  It means you paid the transfer tax.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> How does a plenary requirement for licensure not infringe on the rights of the law abiding??
> 
> How does a plenary training requirement not infringe on the rights of the law abiding?


I would argue that these requirements do not impede one's Second Amendment rights but simply ensure that asserting those rights does not jeopardize the safety of the community and its individual citizens by incompetent exercise.  



> How do they, together or separately, prevent criminals from getting guns?


They don't!

I do not believe that other than imposition of the most oppressive form of autocratic enforcement, such as was exercised at Waco, is capable of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Anyone who disagrees is simply ignoring the complete and utter failure of the War on Drugs debacle.  

The reason for the current increase in criminal gun violence is the increase in restrictions which have given rise to a black market in guns, making them more available to the criminal element than ever before.



> You do not need a DL to buy, own or possess a car, keep it on your property, or use it on your property - how is your statement, above, relevant?


One possibly successful argument is the fact that a car kept and operated on one's private property cannot harm anyone outside the boundaries of that property.  But the same cannot be said for an incompetently handled .38 revolver -- or a .50 Barrett rifle.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Nearly every license/tax is a regulation on your rights. Your confusion stems from the definitions of terms.  You seem to think shall not be infringed means shall not be taxed or regulated or licensed.  You are confused.

Wrong.  It means you paid the transfer tax, filled out the form, the form was reviewed and approved providing you with the stamp, which licenses you to own the machine gun.  No stamp you are in violation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > How does a plenary requirement for licensure not infringe on the rights of the law abiding??
> ...


They are both preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - thus, infringements.


> but simply ensure that asserting those rights does not jeopardize the safety of the community and its individual citizens by incompetent exercise.


How does the tiny % of guns and gun owners that misuse their firearms create a compelling state interest where it must have on record the identity and whereabouts of everyone that  chooses to exercise their right to arms in order  to protect the rights of the people?

How does the even tinier % of guns and gun owners involved in an accidental shooting create a compelling state interest where it must require that everyone that chooses to exercise their right to arms undergo some sort of state-specified training in order  to protect the rights of the people?


> I do not believe that other than imposition of the most oppressive form of autocratic enforcement, such as was exercised at Waco, is capable of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.


Not even then.


> > You do not need a DL to buy, own or possess a car, keep it on your property, or use it on your property - how is your statement, above, relevant?
> 
> 
> One possibly successful argument is the fact that a car kept and operated on one's private property cannot harm anyone outside the boundaries of that property.  But the same cannot be said for an incompetently handled .38 revolver -- or a .50 Barrett rifle.


Simple ownership/possession of a firearm withing the home does not in any way harm anyone or place them in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger -- the constitution does not allow the infringement of rights because of some remote possibility some undefined harm.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


That's exactly what it means, as both are preconditions to the the exercise of the right not inherent to same.
Requring a license and paring regulatory-based tax violates the plenary exercise of the right to arms every bit as much as it viiolates the right to free speech, religion and abortion.


> Wrong.  It means you paid the transfer tax, filled out the form, the form was reviewed and approved providing you with the stamp, which licenses you to own the machine gun.  No stamp you are in violation.


Tax stamp:
Revenue stamp - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
License
License - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Non-synonymous.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


It's not just a matter of paying for the stamp.   And they don't hand out the stamp to everyone that pays for it.  It's just just a stamp.  It's a license to own, you can't buy one without it.  They have "fooled" you into believing that the form and registration process hidden behind the curtain is just a two hundred dollar stamp printer.  Notice the part about your local police chief having to approve your "stamp" ROFL  You can call it a widget or a stamp or pixie dust... it's still a license.

As for infringe.. you're definition of infringe appears to cover pretty much any act as if government is not allowed to do anything that might slow you down from rushing to the store and buying a gun.  You are wrong.  Regulation is not infringement.

Infringe:  to wrongly limit or restrict ... regulation is not a restriction... nor is taxation a limit that is wrongly placed.  The government is allowed to tax the hell out of you for any purpose whatsoever, even the right to live.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Careful what you ask for.  I just may take you up on it for the fun.
> ...




Do you realize that today...with over 320 million guns in private hands that the accidental death rate due to guns was 505 in 2013......and it has been going down, not up as more people now own and carry guns for self defense?

And once you mandate that all voters must submit a license showing that they have a full and complete grasp of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence then they will be allowed to vote...right?

Licensing would do nothing to keep people safe from gun accidents....you know what would......teaching gun safety as part of the fire safety program in all grade schools...that would keep more kids safe.......how about we do that, then you don't have to worry about licensing anyone......

Again...cars are not a right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Tax stamp:
> ...


I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that these words have different definition than the ones you want to assign them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I provided a list of the things done before you are allowed to get your "stamp."  You can call it nothing but a stamp, but everyone but you apparently knows it's more than a mere stamp, it's a license for one gun.   But I guess some people lack the intelligence to understand that renaming a thing to call it a stamp and make stupid people feel ok about it does not make the word so. 

For example affordable health care act... not affordable at all is it?  As another example, patriot act... not patriotic at all is it?  Deer stamp is not a coupon, it's a license to kill a deer.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


No matter how many times you repeat this, and no matter how hard you stomp your feet while doing so, it will not change the fact that licenses and tax stamps are non-synonymous.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


They are when the stamp is proof of license by the state for ownership.  

You do know what license means right?  License:  a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade. 

Here's another explanation...:

*Step 1:  Purchase NFA Item from dealer with class 3 license*
The first step in the process is to purchase your firearm since you will need the serial number for your paperwork. When you purchase through a dealer with a class 3 license you can process paperwork through them. Once you have purchased your firearm, the dealer will hold the weapon until you are approved. If your paperwork is not approved for whatever reason, you may or may not get all of your money back depending on your dealer. Some dealers will allow you to put the payment in escrow, but be sure to be clear on all contingencies before buying.

*ATF Form 4*
ATF Form 4 is the application for tax paid transfer and registration of a firearm. You need to complete this form in duplicate to start the process of obtaining your NFA tax stamp. Remember that any misleading or false statement made on your paperwork is considered a felony offense.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf

*Fingerprints & recent photos*
Submitted with your ATF Form 4, you will need 2 sets of fingerprint cards and 2 recent photos of yourself in a passport style. Fingerprint cards can be made at your local Police Station or Sheriff's Department so contact them for more information. As for the passport photos, you can go to any place that takes photos for passports (like Walgreens).







*Form 5330.20*
When the transferee of a NFA firearm is an individual, form 5330.20, which is the certification of compliance with 18 U.S.C.  922(g)(5)(B), must be filed. This form certifies that you have US citizenship.

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5330-20.pdf

*Signature by Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)*
You will need a CLEO signature on your NFA Form 4. The CLEO signature it to have an authority in your local area check for criminal background or activity and look for a legitimate reason to deny your request. The authority can be your Chief of police, county Sheriff, State or Federal Judge. Don’t be discouraged if one of them is not willing to sign, the worst that is going to happen is you get told no and you have to move on to the next qualified CLEO.

*



*

*Tax Stamp*
A $200 tax stamp needs to be bought for each weapon transaction submitted unless you are buying a weapon that falls under the “any other weapons” category, in this case the tax stamp will cost $5. A check or money order made payable to the Bureau of ATF can be sent with the application forms to the Bureau of ATF, NFA Branch.

*The wait*
After the paperwork is received an extensive background check is done and your fingerprints are ran by FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). If all is in order, approval is granted and your ATF form 4, fingerprints, and photos are filed with the BATFE and your duplicate Form 4 with canceled tax stamp is sent to you. The process can take around 90-180 days but recently has been taking 7-11 months.

.............


It's a helluva lot easier to get a driver's license than it is a license to own machine gun.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I did not say licenses and tax stamps were synonymous.  Those are your words.

The permit (aka. license, aka tax stamp for permited machine guns) is regulated by, managed by, and most certainly licensed by the ATF and Local Police.


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 7, 2015)

There is a constitutional protection for law abiding and competent adults to own weapons suitable to defend themselves from likely threats to their person and property, but there may be various limits to that right (DC v. Heller).

The most productive limitation would be a banning on the new manufacture of clips beyond 15 rounds, along with the classification of existing clips of greater than 15 rounds as a destructive devise under FOPA, subject to the same tax stamp requirements as machine guns.

After all, the classical definition of tyranny is having the lives of the many being at the mercy of a madman.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> [...]
> 
> How does the tiny % of guns and gun owners that misuse their firearms create a compelling state interest where it must have on record the identity and whereabouts of everyone that  chooses to exercise their right to arms in order  to protect the rights of the people?
> 
> How does the even tinier % of guns and gun owners involved in an accidental shooting create a compelling state interest where it must require that everyone that chooses to exercise their right to arms undergo some sort of state-specified training in order  to protect the rights of the people?[...]


Either your statistical source is somewhat distorted or your concerns are rather casual.

(Excerpt)

_*A study published Monday in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, revealed that a startling 10,000 children in the U.S. are either injured or killed in gun-related incidents each year, NBC reports.

According to the study, more than 7,000 kids visit the emergency room annually, or about 20 each day, due to gun-related injuries and another 3,000 die before they ever even make it to the hospital. The majority – about half — of those injuries and deaths are the result of assault, while less than 25 percent are due to accidents and under 300 cases – less than 3 percent — are ruled to be from attempted suicide.*_

Study shows 10 000 youth injured or killed each year in the U.S. by firearms

(Close)

We don't want cars on the road which are driven by those who have not demonstrated their competence and knowledge of the rules.  The same requirement should apply to guns.

Gun dealers should be responsible for ensuring that a person to whom he hands over a firearm -- a lethal weapon, understands how to use it, how it works, and how to properly safeguard it.  It would take just a few minutes to make such a determination and certify it in writing.

And if it prevents the death and injury of just a few innocent kids (and adults) why do you feel it's not worth the effort and bureaucratic imposition?

If you put a car on the road you should know how to drive it.  If you put a gun in your home, or in your pocket, you should know how it works and how to use it.  That seems reasonable to me.

As to your suggestion about training in schools, while that would be a very good source of general information it would not provide critical information about the specific mechanics of the many hundreds of different firearms on today's market.  It should be up to the individual who is interested in owning a specific gun to learn how to safely handle it and properly use it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The cancelled tax stamp is proof that the tax was paid at the end of the process.   Its still not a license.
NFA Class III firearm licenses do not exist.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You're arguing that the tax stamp for the NFA class III firearm is a license for that firearm -- and so yes, yes you did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> There is a constitutional protection for law abiding and competent adults to own weapons suitable to defend themselves from likely threats to their person and property, but there may be various limits to that right (DC v. Heller).
> 
> The most productive limitation would be a banning on the new manufacture of clips beyond 15 rounds, along with the classification of existing clips of greater than 15 rounds as a destructive devise under FOPA, subject to the same tax stamp requirements as machine guns.


How is this "productive"?
How does this prevent criminals from getting guns?  
How does this not violate the constitution?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Either your statistical source is somewhat distorted or your concerns are rather casual.


Source for accidents and suicides
http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D105
Feel free to conduct the appropriate searches.- there's a lot of good info in there.
Source for murders:
FBI Expanded Offense Data

I ask again::
How does the tiny % of guns and gun owners that misuse their firearms create a compelling state interest where it must have on record the identity and whereabouts of everyone that  chooses to exercise their right to arms in order  to protect the rights of the people?

How does the even tinier % of guns and gun owners involved in an accidental shooting create a compelling state interest where it must require that everyone that chooses to exercise their right to arms undergo some sort of state-specified training in order  to protect the rights of the people?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> There is a constitutional protection for law abiding and competent adults to own weapons suitable to defend themselves from likely threats to their person and property, but there may be various limits to that right (DC v. Heller).
> 
> The most productive limitation would be a banning on the new manufacture of clips beyond 15 rounds, along with the classification of existing clips of greater than 15 rounds as a destructive devise under FOPA, subject to the same tax stamp requirements as machine guns.
> 
> After all, the classical definition of tyranny is having the lives of the many being at the mercy of a madman.




Yeah...you realize that would be stupid and pointless right...considering how easily French criminals get fully automatic rifles and 30 round magazines in a country that doesn't allow law abiding French citizens to have any guns.....and you expect our criminals to not be able to get any magazine they want.....

And mass shooters.....the Church shooter.....changed magazines 5 times, the Santa Barbara shooter, used the 10 round legal magazines allowed in California...

So again...pointless and unnecessary and only affects the law abiding.....

Why do you guys never look beyond the first step of your "solution" to what happens after you implement it.......it would save a lot of typing on our part.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Either your statistical source is somewhat distorted or your concerns are rather casual.
> ...




Yes.....in a country of over 320 million people......we had exactly 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.........505 deaths in a country of 320 million....

The gun grabbers are nuts........

and even gun murders...only 8,454 in 2013...out of a country of over 320 million people...

If they really cared about stopping crimnals, they would actually worry about stopping criminals...for example...in the Chicago 4th of July Shooting Gallery, a 7 year old was killed as gunmen tried to shoot his father....a high ranking gang leader....

This man has over 40 arrests on the record, is a convicted felon...and was arrested on a gun possession charge...and he was out of jail the next day....

Fix that problem and don't worry about the law abiding people.....you don't have to worry about them...they aren't the problem with guns....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...




Sorry...that isn't a real study....the CDC shows that for 2013 there were exactly 505 accidental gun deaths in total.....and child deaths due to guns are approximately under 100 each year...

You need to stop trusting the anti gun propaganda put out as research....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...




Do you understand how they come up with that number.......did you check the ages of the "Children" in that study?

To get numbers that high they include "Children" up to 25...at least that is the way they have done it in the past....and most of the "Children" in the study are gang members, with criminal records shot in crime related activity...

that is how the gun grabbers get that number high.....

Then they pretend it is little Jane and Johnny riding their bikes or selling lemonade on their front lawn...

Never, ever trust gun grabbers....they lie....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...




Yep...thought so......do you really consider a "Child" as a 20 year old gang member......and keep in mind...this is a Pediatric journal passing off this crap as actual research....

Yeah....thanks for trying....go back and find some real research.....

Study shows 10 000 youth injured or killed each year in the U.S. by firearms


*The study refers to children as anyone 20 years old and younger, a fact that could prove to be somewhat misleading or confusing at best.*

The age of the victim seemed to have a profound result on the type of injury they suffered as well. For example, accidental shootings were more prevalent among children under the age of five. These cases often lead to brain and spinal cord injuries with devastating and life-changing results.

*Homicide cases, however, were more prevalent in the 18- to 20-year-old range, a range which one could reasonably argue is not youth or childhood, as in most states 18-year-olds are legal adults. *Nevertheless, according to a study previously published in Pediatrics, this is an age that is already commonly marked by high rates of violent behavior. And that violent behavior, as noted nearly 20 years ago, is increasing in younger ages as well.

A study by the National Institute of Mental Health shows that “rates of death by injury between ages 15 to 19 are about six times that of the rate between ages 10 and 14” and indicates that the still-developing brain of the adolescent – complete with the constant ups and downs that accompany that — may have a factor in those injuries. “In key ways, the brain doesn’t look like that of an adult until the early 20s,” the study states.

So.......18-20 year old Toddlers huh............do they still wear diapers as well...?


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 7, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > There is a constitutional protection for law abiding and competent adults to own weapons suitable to defend themselves from likely threats to their person and property, but there may be various limits to that right (DC v. Heller).
> ...



Anders Breivik got his clips from sources here in the US. These were floating around the internet precisely because they are commonplace, and the seller didn't have to pay $200 a piece, per year, to keep them in his inventory. Will some slip through the cracks? Sure.  But at least we should make these socially retarded would-be spree-shooters work for it.  How many of these types will survive long enough in the ghettos to purchase what they want? Probably none of them would have.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...




again...the right to arms is just that...A Right......and with more Americans owning and carrying guns for protection the gun murder rate, and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up....it is not a problem......

Again..in a country of over 320 million people....only 505 people died from accidental gun deaths in 2013........

falling killed far more people....cars killed far more people.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...




Fully automatic rifles and magazines are easy to get in Europe.....the shooters in France, at Charlie hebdo and in Marseille had them as did the shooters in Belgium, Sweden and Denmark.....and the killing the Norway killer did....he killed so many people because no one else was armed...not even the initial police......magaziine capacity had nothing to do with it......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





yes.....as soon as you implement a 200 dollar tax for voting, along with an extensive course requirement on U.S. government and Constitutional law, and as long as the voter owns a home........then you can think about taxing guns......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> There is a constitutional protection for law abiding and competent adults to own weapons suitable to defend themselves from likely threats to their person and property, but there may be various limits to that right (DC v. Heller).
> 
> The most productive limitation would be a banning on the new manufacture of clips beyond 15 rounds, along with the classification of existing clips of greater than 15 rounds as a destructive devise under FOPA, subject to the same tax stamp requirements as machine guns.
> 
> After all, the classical definition of tyranny is having the lives of the many being at the mercy of a madman.




You don't realize that all of the mass shooters could kill the same number of people they killed with revolvers...right....?  No magazines needed...therefore making magazine limits stupid and pointless.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...




And the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines which were the only legal ones in California.......and the Church shooter changed his magazines 5 times......

Magazine limits are really fucking stupid.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...




It is as easy as this.....

If someone commits a crime with a gun....we can already arrest them and put them in jail...no magazine limit needed to do that....

If a convicted felon is caught in the possession of a gun....you can already arrest them and put them in jail...no magazine limit needed.......

All of the past mass shootings could have been done with revolvers....pointing out that magazine limits on people who don't commit crimes is stupid and pointless....since criminals....even in Europe where they have extreme gun control.....get whatever magazines they want easily.....it is just law abiding Europeans who can't get them...

Makes a lot of sense right....?  Criminals get magazines....law abiding people who commit no crimes are banned by law from having them.....

do you guys ever think past the initial feel good thoughts of your ideas?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...




You do realize that the pistol alone would have done the same job....and he used a Ruger mini 14......and easily got the magazines for them despite the restrictions in Norway...right....and he already had a shotgun and bolt action rifle........


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Ruger mini 14 comes can use 5, 10 round magazines as well...in fact the mass shooters at Columbine did their killing with 10 round magazines.........in a defenseless victim pool, rounds in the magazine don't matter...since no one can shoot back....and in Norway...the "special" police...the ones with guns, couldn't get to him....allowing him to kill.  The capacity of his magazines made no difference in the killing.

Actually, the Columbine killers didn't use the Ruger...they used a High Point Carbine....

10 round magazine.....

So.......your magazine limit would not have stopped this mass shooting, the mass shooting in Norway, the Church shooting, Newton..where he changed magazines repeatedly in the 4:30 minutes that he took to kill and then committed suicide when he heard the police sirens....

So again....your magazine limit is stupid and pointless....criminals get the magazines they want and mass shooters can kill just as  easily with 10 round magazines.......

think people......


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 7, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > There is a constitutional protection for law abiding and competent adults to own weapons suitable to defend themselves from likely threats to their person and property, but there may be various limits to that right (DC v. Heller).
> ...



You certainly have no proof of that claim.  Many shooters have been stopped at reload.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 7, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Saving lives is stupid?  Giffords shooter was stopped at reload.  A smaller magazine would have ment fewer people killed/injured.  People don't use large magazines for defense, only mass shooters and gang bangers need them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...




And you know that each case you have relied on has been shown to be wrong......pure dumb luck is not a way to stop someone at reload....Gabby Giffords, dumb luck, the Long Island shooter, actually ran out of bullets before they attempted to get him and he reloaded, and Newton...in 5 minutes he changed magazinse several times even though he had 30 round magazines....he did combat reloads....even the church shooter changed magazines 5 times and no one stopped him....

moron...


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 7, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...




and again...the Giffords shooter shot a guy, that guy was grazed in the head and assumed dead...the shooter walked up to the guy he thought was dead and  became close enough to be tackled, the woman who "wrestled the magazine" from him.....had gotten on the ground hoping he would ignore her...when he fell he fell right next to her and she reached out to get the magazine......pure dumb luck...and that is your best example.....


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 7, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Dumb luck?  Sometimes that's what it takes to save lives.  Sorry but a smaller magazine would have clearly saved lives/injuries in the Giffords shooting.  How many people are hit by strays because gang bangers are emptying hi cap mags in drive buys and other shootings?  People don't need hi cap magazines for defense, only mass shooters and gang bangers need them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 8, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> The most productive limitation would be a banning on the new manufacture of clips beyond 15 rounds, along with the classification of existing clips of greater than 15 rounds as a destructive devise under FOPA, subject to the same tax stamp requirements as machine guns.


How is this "productive"?
How does this prevent criminals from getting guns? 
How does this not violate the constitution?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 8, 2015)

594 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 8, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Don't be a moron.  We already have a 200 dollar tax for one type of gun... why not for other types?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 8, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Don't be a moron.  Hint: what "process" are you talking about?  Hint:  the licensing process, of course.  The tax stamp is proof that you have gone through the licensing process for access to the gun in question.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Don't be an asshole...we shouldn't have the tax on those guns either....any tax or fee placed on guns makes it harder for the poorest Americans to buy them....and since the poorest of us usually live in democrat controlled hell holes, they are the ones who more often than not have less access to police and must rely more on themselves on a day to day basis for their own protection.

There is absolutely no need to put a tax on guns....a tool protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

And asshole.....why not put a 200 dollar tax on a license to vote, with a mandatory test on our government and Constitution with a property requirement....stupid voters do far more long term harm to all of us than guns do.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




What exactly is a licensing process supposed to accomplish.....will criminals go through this licensing process?  And will it stop mass shooters...no...they will go through the process, get their license and go murder people...just like the Santa Barbara killer did when he passed background checks 3 times to get his 3 guns....so licensing will be just as stupid.....

There is no reason to license gun owners other than to keep track of law abiding gun owners.....the very people who won't use guns to commit crimes....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 8, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You misunderstand.  m14 was begging continuously for someone to make an argument for how to do this piece of shit thing.  I got tired of waiting and watching him boast about no one being able to provide a way and / or an argument.  So I did it.

I am 100% with you that this should not be done.  My point was merely to outline how it could.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 8, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



It's supposed to reduce the number of people that get access to one of the guns in a legal way.   No criminals will not go through this licensing process they will get them through federal government programs designed to use tax dollars to distribute guns to criminals.  They will also get them on the black market.  The only way it actually reduces one aspect crime is by reducing the amount of first crimes using these weapons by the people who are to lazy or poor to go through the process.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Well why didn't you say so.....I thought you were a gun grabber........I have developed a short temper when it comes to debating gun grabbers...I apologize for mistaking you for one......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




I don't think you solved his question though......or mine.....licensing can be done but it is pointless and does nothing that the gun grabbers claim they want...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> You misunderstand.  m14 was begging continuously for someone to make an argument for how to do this piece of shit thing.  I got tired of waiting and watching him boast about no one being able to provide a way and / or an argument.  So I did it.


Sorta.   Thanks for the sparring!


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 8, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


NP... The gun grabbers were not making a good show of themselves. So I pontificated the pattern that will be used to grab more guns.  It's really pretty obvious if you think about it.  They already have the pattern and for the most part it has worked.  You don't see many machine guns around except for the ones the feds, police, and criminals have.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 8, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Most gun grabbers don't know what they want.  They just want "something" to be done.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




They know exactly what they want...it is just that they don't have the absolute power to do it...so they chip away at gun ownership one law, one tax, one fee ant a time.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 8, 2015)

Now let's go bash some real gun grabbers.........


----------



## MikeK (Jul 8, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> [...]
> 
> How does the tiny % of guns and gun owners that misuse their firearms create a compelling state interest where it must have on record the identity and whereabouts of everyone that  chooses to exercise their right to arms in order  to protect the rights of the people?


When I was a young man one could buy any type of shoulder weapon without providing any form of identification.  Unless I am mistaken that situation no longer exists.  In fact, in New Jersey, one must apply for and receive authorization to purchase even an air rifle.  Were it not for this already extant ID requirement I would not consider adding a competence certification.



> How does the even tinier % of guns and gun owners involved in an accidental shooting create a compelling state interest where it must require that everyone that chooses to exercise their right to arms undergo some sort of state-specified training in order  to protect the rights of the people?


The "tiny" percentage of a vast population is a massive loss to the surviving family of a shooting accident or misuse in handling victim. If much of that massive loss can be avoided by including a competence requirement to the existing ID and _background check_ requirement, why not impose it?  What negative effect can it have?

I should add here that I am not anti-gun.  I was raised around guns and I believe most gun laws are counterproductive.  But as long as these laws are in place I see nothing wrong with making the best of a bad situation.  And I simply believe there is something wrong with a situation in which someone who has absolutely no specific knowledge of and no training or experience with firearms can fill out a form and take one home to play with.

What is wrong with simply needing to convince a dealer that you know how to use, handle and safeguard the gun you want to buy?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 8, 2015)

MikeK said:


> When I was a young man one could buy any type of shoulder weapon without providing any form of identification.  Unless I am mistaken that situation no longer exists.  In fact, in New Jersey, one must apply for and receive authorization to purchase even an air rifle.  Were it not for this already extant ID requirement I would not consider adding a competence certification.


This does not soundly answer my question.  Please try again.


> The "tiny" percentage of a vast population is a massive loss to the surviving family of a shooting accident or misuse in handling. If much of that tiny percentage can be avoided by including a competence requirement to the existing ID and _background check_ requirement, why not impose it?  What negative effect can it have?


This does not soundly answer my question.  Please try again.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 8, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You really have.  You need to chill a bit.  Fortunately I think we all understand politics brings out the worst.  Something tells me you are otherwise very civil and pleasant.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 9, 2015)

611 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

Still nothing....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Still nothing....


Bullshit... you've simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the debate.

You have still not addressed my extended tax stamp process idea that mirrors the process used for machine guns and silencers.

Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow... thus limiting certain guns will limit the number of first crimes with said weapons.  Pure statistics.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Still nothing....
> ...


You have not explained how this prevent criminals from getting guns
You have not explained how a tax designed to limit the exercise of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd amendment


> Additionally you have not addressed the "first crimes" point regarding people who are not criminals today but will use a weapon to become a criminal tomorrow.


Nothing in the OP necessitates that I do.
But...  in a free country, people get to exercise their rights until they do something that causes them to loose the ability to do so


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Again as stated before.. your reading of the 2nd amendment is wrong.  It says "shall not restrict" it does not say shall make no laws regarding, shall not regulate, shall not limit, shall not register, or shall not tax.
Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns.  It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands.  By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns to commit crime.

Again you are not listening, I'm not sure why you are being so obtuse.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

If the tax stamp process currently being used is "unconstitutional" then why is it still in place some 50years later?  If it is constitutional then it can be expanded.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




This is the second poster using the term "First Crimes" is this a new tact by the nuts on the anti gun extremist whack job side.........what a bunch of morons......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

What part of fucking "infringed" do you anti gun extremists not fucking get....

Infringe Definition of infringe by Merriam-Webster



> to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)



Poll taxes and literacy tests are unconstitutional...taxes that make owning a weapon for self defense more difficult are the same thing as a poll tax or literacy test for that right....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I came up with it on my own.  I thought it better than calling it the department of pre-crime.  How often do you hear of people using machine guns to commit crimes?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Machine guns are large and hard to conceal and move around....pistols are easily concealed and kill just as easily for the type of murder they do...and when they want machine guns...they easily get them....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> What part of fucking "infringed" do you anti gun extremists not fucking get....
> 
> Infringe Definition of infringe by Merriam-Webster
> 
> ...



to *wrongly* limit or restrict ... wrongly is a vague term.  You'll note it does not say to limit at all ... it says to wrongly limit.  Thus the question is what sort of limit is a valid type of limit.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Not true, sub-machine guns and machine pistols are easy to carry.  As for they get them when they want... how do they get them?  From homeland defense?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



They steal them or import them illegally.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > What part of fucking "infringed" do you anti gun extremists not fucking get....
> ...




Anything that makes it harder for a poor American to exercise a right is "wrongly."  So taxes, permit fees, and waiting periods are infringements on exercising the Right.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Shall not infringe.
Any restriction or precondition laid upon the exercise of the right to arms not inherent to same is an infringement.
None of the restrictions you want to lay upon that exercise of the right are inherent to same - thus, infringements.


> Incorrect I already explained how it prevents some criminals from getting guns.  It does so by reducing the number of guns in non-criminals hands.  By reducing the number of guns in non-criminal hands we reduce future first criminals that use otherwise legal guns tocommit crime.


Criminals will still get guns, yes?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




And they are still larger than hand guns.....and harder to conceal and get rid of after a shooting......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




And it is a cultural difference as well...the criminals in Europe seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....and they get those easily in countries where they are highly illegal, and where they are bound by extreme gun control laws.......


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


So are people who import them illegally criminals before they import them or after they import them?  Why are they criminals for importing them if the constitution says they can?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Again, we already have the tax stamp process for machine guns, assigning that process for more guns will be constitutional for the same reason it's been constitutional for machine guns and silencers.

Not as many... they would be more expensive by an order of magnitude or two... there would be less guns, less guns to get, less first crimes with guns, less criminals with guns all simple math.

Criminals would just move on to cheaper weapons, like sticks & knives.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Criminals will steal them locally from the police, military or gun stores, or gun owners or if they find a supplier overseas, the Russians or the Chinese they will import them....remember during the Clinton Administration...one of their big campaign donors. Wang Jun, was a chines business man caught trying to sell thousands of AK-47s to California street gangs....

That they stick to pistols is again a culture thing here in the states.....European terrorists prefer fully automatic rifles....even though they are less accurate.....


What the constitution says and what we have allowed to be made into laws are two different things.....having to get permits for guns is one of them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Taxing guns to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms  violates that right to arms in exactly the same manner that taxing abortions to make them too expensive for women to have one violates their right to choose.
Infringement.  Unarguably.  Fail.


> Not as many...


And so, criminals will still get guns.   Fail.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



While some would go through the trouble of getting guns, I think most would change to other weapons.  But the victims of a knife are just as dead.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


M

M 14....which dipstick was it who said that he would keep a gun but would keep it unloaded since you don't have to have bullets to stop a criminal...this story is for that dipstick.....

San Leandro Man Forgets To Load His Gun Is Shot During Home Invasion - Bearing Arms - Training


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



One thing about the machine gun laws is that new machine guns can't be bought.  Only pre 86' guns are in circulation legally.  That has more to do with them being rare in crime than increased price.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I believe you have often said defenses often don't involve any shooting.  Any that do would make the news.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




I never said have an unloaded gun to do that with......I have pointed out that most of the time the criminal runs away...but they don't always do that...some are too stupid, high or crazy to run when they should run.....and when they run, no shots are usually fired....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Sorry...if criminals decided they need fully automatic rifles they would get them....but law abiding citizens would still not have them.....and even most civilians don't see a need.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



So most of the time an unloaded gun should be just as effective as a loaded one.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Only in 54% of cases....and you don't know which ones those are do you?


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You don't need a full auto to rob somebody.  People have been robbed with a finger in a pocket.

Imagine the number of people killed by strays if criminals and defenders had full autos.   That would be silly.  As you said most of the time the criminal runs away with no shots fired.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



So you are saying shots are fired in 46% of defenses?  Link?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And of course all deaths by rifles....not even "assault rifles" are not even half of those murdered with knives or hands and feet...so it is not likely that the 1 million AR-15s already in private hands are ever going to be a problem.....

Again...over 1 million AR-15s are in private hands...and  criminals don't use them often.......if at all for their crimes.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



I remember seeing it....but I'm not looking for it today...but here....let me go where you are going to go..

Brain....but there are only 230 criminals killed each year by people with guns...

2aguy:  brain, not every shooting results in a kill, most criminals are just wounded, or run away.....or are missed when shot at and then they run away.....

There, I saved you some typing.....no thanks needed...


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No I was going to say there must not be very many defenses because most where a shot was fired would make the news.  And very few make the news.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And again...they only publish things they think are interesting, strained through a filter of anti gun bias......that, with the fact that most news casts are only 20 minutes long with commericials.....only the most interesting stories are going to make it and victim pulls gun and criminal runs away.....not going to make the news in most cases...unless it is on video...


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Gun defenses are interesting, thats why they make national news.  In this day of the Internet there would be lots of defense stories if shots were fired 46% of the time.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Brain will only lie to you.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Prove any lie I have used.  Seems you only lie.  And are very childish.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


If we'll allow machine guns and silencers to go through the extreme process of tax stamps, what makes you think we won't give in on any number of other things as well.  For example, why do you need more than one bullet at a time?  Why do you need a scary looking .357 magnum?  Why not just rifles of .22 caliber or less for slugs and .410 bore shot guns for hunting and sporting?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Incorrect, it's already being done for machine guns and it did not Fail.  Government is allowed to tax you to hell and back for any damn reason they want to.  Well except to vote that is.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The tax on machine guns is not there to make them too expensive for people to exercise their right to arms


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The tax stamp process is what I'm talking about.  The reason machine guns are too expensive is that the tax stamp process came with a ban on sales to the public and imports for machine guns.  The ban cause the prices to sky rocket.  My tax stamp expansion will also carry with it a ban on sales of new guns to the public and imports for the expanded types of guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


All of which are intended to make the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms too expensive to exercise.
This infringes upon the right to keeps and bear arms as it would if enacted over the exercise of any right.
So does any ban on the sales of new guns.
Fail.

Criminals will also, as you admit, still get guns.  Fail.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



1) not if there wasn't a death
2) only if they have video


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




There are 1 million AR-15s in private hands, yet they account for a handful of crimes each year....why...because our criminals prefer small concealable guns....but if they want AR-15s or anything else for that matter you tax stamp isn't going to stop them........


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




And so with the vote so with having a gun....it is a right, just like voting, thanks for proving our point for us....


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Many have neither and make the news.  Guns are big news.  Look how many accidental shootings make the news even with no deaths.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




there were a total of 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013....care to show me links to all of those stories?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2015)

I believe we merely need more Judicial activism regarding the betterment of our aqueducts and our roads.


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


What you mean to say is the level of misuse of guns by gun owners in the US in no way justifies the wholesale licensure of gun owners, wholesale registration of firearms, punitive taxation of the ownership of firearms and the cessation of the production of new firearms.

Indeed.   All these are, without question, intentionally broad infringements on the right to arms for which there is no demonstrable  compelling state interest.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




yeah...that is exactly what I mean.....


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



i bet they can be found.  But no im not going to go back and find them.  You want me to start posting accidental shootings?  It's amazing how more of those make the news than defenses.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2015)

Private property must be regulated as Commerce in public venues.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


As I have "repeatedly" explained to you congress is allowed to tax the HELL out of us an screw with us as much as they want too.  Look at Obama care. Look at the current tax stamp process for machine guns.  They have their nazi boots and they are allowed to use them.  The tax stamp process is not a BAN it's a regulatory process that is "constitutional."

The only FAIL is your ability to recognize that the FAIL is your ASSUMPTION that this Federal Government can't fuck you over at will.  Excuse my french.

Nothing short of completely stopping you from exercising your rights will be considered "infringing" by congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS.  You are SCREWED.  If you don't like being SCREWED you will have to elect better representatives than those from this two headed snake we call the democrat-republican party.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I didn't say they could take it away.  What I said is they can use the tax stamp process and other taxes  to make it too expensive for most people to buy them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Since when did our Federal Government need justification for screwing us?  We're talking about a government that thinks its funny and ok to delete public records when they get caught screwing us over the coals.  This government makes Nixon look like a saint.  We're talking about a government that uses tax payer dollars to arm drug cartels with machine guns.  We're talking about a government that uses drones to kill US citizens.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2015)

An honest and open debate should include a reason for why gun lovers are unwilling to establish confidence in their sincerity with their own elected representatives regarding being responsible with their Arms in public.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


But not under the effort of trying to limit the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution, because those protections, found in various amendments, amend the power to tax.
You refuse to understand this.   Not sure why.


> Nothing short of completely stopping you from exercising your rights will be considered "infringing" by congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS.


This is of course, a lie, with no substance whatsoever behind it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Since Marbury v Madison and footnote 4 of Carolene Products.


> We're talking about a government that thinks its funny and ok to delete public records when they get caught screwing us over the coals.  This government makes Nixon look like a saint.  We're talking about a government that uses tax payer dollars to arm drug cartels with machine guns.  We're talking about a government that uses drones to kill US citizens.


And you want to make it that much harder for the people to protect themselves from that government.
Interesting.  Which side are you on?


----------



## MikeK (Jul 10, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> I ask again::
> 
> How does the tiny % of guns and gun owners that misuse their firearms create a compelling state interest where it must have on record the identity and whereabouts of everyone that  chooses to exercise their right to arms in order  to protect the rights of the people?[...]


My answer begins with the fact that I am strongly opposed to gun registration.  But since gun registration exists and is firmly embedded in our established system of government I don't see how my suggestion, which will prevent a lot of death and injury, can add to the negativity of registration.  

If your opposition to my suggestion is based on an anti-registration position, am I mistaken in believing that gun registration is a nationwide requirement for legal ownership?  I presently own two guns.  As I recall, I had to go through a major bureaucratic process to register both purchases.  So how would my suggestion add to the registration requirements?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Actually, a machine gun is a crew served weapon....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




why should we make them harder for peaceful, law abiding people to buy them...they ain't the ones using them to kill other people....

here is an original idea....how about we try to stop actual criminals with 40 convictions who get arrested on a gun charge from using guns to murder people....you know, something that will actually lower the gun murder rate?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




and again...why don't we tax voting...to make sure only the right kind of people can vote....or require a test on our government and the Constitution as well as current events before we let people exercise their right to vote....?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




yes...because most journalists are anti gun and reflexively show them in the worst light possible....do you ever hear them report on how often guns are used to save lives and stop violent crime?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I ask again::
> ...




You guys always say that your ideas will prevent death and injury.....that is called magic thinking.......you say making guns more expensive will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....they steal them...that costs nothing....they give money to people who can pass all of your gun control laws to buy them these guns....bypassing your tax stamps....

and tax stamps will not prevent one death or crime....but it will keep law abiding citizens, especially the poor from buying and owning guns for their own protection....people who live in violent places where criminals get guns easily, where the innocent have little protection by the police and are left to the mercy of violent, gun armed criminals...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Not any more they can now tax you for your right to health care.  They can tax you for ANY EFFING REASON WHATSOEVER NOW.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Me?  I'm on the side of liberty.  But I'm not blind to the facts.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Cause the facts are the only thing they can't tax is voting.  But they can ensure that the voting is rigged.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


It's not about lowering the murder rate it's about control.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




and not one thing you want adds to "control" since criminals will get around your tax stamp idea as easily as they do the other laws meant to prevent them from getting guns.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 11, 2015)

Yes, a well regulated Militia is much more effective than any more anarchic gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




and see...that is the problem with gun grabbers and their fellow travelers, the gun supporters who want to give up rights to appease the gun grabbers...which never, ever works.....you just give up all of your rights a little at a time...

The focus should be on stopping criminals....and the absolute only way to do that is to catch them and lock them up for a long time.......anything else is stupid.....

why "control" the people not committing the crime.......what is the fucking point of that.....do you not see how illogical that is.....sure....you can make more people comlply because law abiding people will obey whatever stupid law you pass......but the criminals.......you know....the actual people killing people.........won't comply so you have achieved nothing important........

do you understand that?

The only way....is to lock up criminals who use guns...they are the problem.....and they all have long criminal records and repeat offenses....


and what is it with the focus on "FIRST CRIMES".....is this a new approach by e gun grabbers....

here is a clue......"First criminals" are not the fucking problem........the career, violent criminals with years of violent criminal behavior are the problem............focus on them, and you reduce the murder rate.....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You're confused.  The libtards are trying to make it easier for criminals and harder for citizens to defend themselves.  This is about power for criminals, such as government power.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


We're talking about libtards, it's about fucking things up not making them better.  Libtards only give a shit about taking things from other people and pissing on everything.  We're talking about the screw ups of this world that can't do anything right.  First crimes, pre-crime, for the children, throwing grandma off the cliff, are the only arguments the libtards have for taking away our rights.  The republicans have no balls, they are not willing to fight for our rights.  They side with the libtards.  You folks are voting for the wrong party.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Well, until the libertarians or Tea Party get more power the only thing stopping democrats is simply keeping them out of office...they can't pass laws if they aren't in office.  So while the Republicans suck, they suck less than the democrats do....so we have to hole the line until the libertarians or Tea Party get stronger in the Republican party.....and keep in mind, there are several Tea Party and Libertarian candidates on the republican slate of Presidential candidates.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 11, 2015)

An honest and open debate about gun control:  Gun control is a State's sovereign right. 

Gun prohibition is not due to an implied Commerce Clause regarding States and our explicit federal Commerce Clause in Any case of Omission in a State Constitution.

Why are gun lovers not willing or able to convince their own elected representatives who Only make laws for Persons considered to be specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated; that they are able to be responsible enough with their Arms, to not need as much gun control from a State addressing its domestic Tranquilly  and security needs.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Uhmm republicans are not much better.  Tea party is dead... look at the son of a bitches H1B visas up our asses... these assholes in the republican party don't give a shit about America.  Yeah ok there may be one or two republicans that do... but one or two is no reason to vote for all of them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




The best reason to vote for republicans.....hilary, if elected will be able to appoint 2,3 or 4 supreme court justices, and they will be vetted for extreme anti gun rulings.......

Keeping congress, at least the Senate in Republican hands is vital for gun rights...and a Republican President is better than hilary....

And any republican, as flawed as they are, they are not hostile to the country he way democrats are...


----------



## MikeK (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> You guys always say that your ideas will prevent death and injury.....that is called magic thinking.......you say making guns more expensive will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....they steal them...that costs nothing....they give money to people who can pass all of your gun control laws to buy them these guns....bypassing your tax stamps....
> 
> and tax stamps will not prevent one death or crime....but it will keep law abiding citizens, especially the poor from buying and owning guns for their own protection....people who live in violent places where criminals get guns easily, where the innocent have little protection by the police and are left to the mercy of violent, gun armed criminals...


I didn't suggest anything other than adding a requirement to the existing purchasing process that would ensure the purchaser of a firearm is sufficiently knowledgeable to own it and to require that some level of training be required when that competence is not demonstrated.

This requirement is something a licensed gun dealer should be able to certify in a few minutes and it is probable that the vast majority of prospective purchasers will be immediately certifiable.  Would you agree that those who are not certifiable should not be handling a device which is capable of killing or injuring some innocent person?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


screw that I'll vote for the best candidate period... and it won't be a socialist or anyone that supports h1b visas.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> screw that I'll vote for the best candidate period... and it won't be a socialist or anyone that supports h1b visas.


RKM,

Are you wealthy?  If not, would you consider voting for Bernie Sanders?  If not, why not.

Thanks in advance for your response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

MikeK said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > screw that I'll vote for the best candidate period... and it won't be a socialist or anyone that supports h1b visas.
> ...


I'll look at each candidate in extreme detail.  Then choose the best one.  I'd probably vote for a conservative democrat leader that is against h1bs before I'd vote for a socialist republican who is for h1bs.  But if a libertarian were out there that was better than both the republican and the democrat I'd vote for him first.  I'm done with voting for politicians who say they are conservative then attack the American worker by flooding our economy with cheap labor and defending offshoring.  As for my wealth I don't see how that's germane.  I'm upper middle.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Which democrat is against any people coming in here?  True, they like poor, uneducated,  angry, America hating immigrants the most....but I think they will take any foreign voter over an American voter any day of the week.....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


Bernie Sanders is pro American Workers also Walker.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 11, 2015)

10 U.S. senators seek investigation into H-1B-driven layoffs Computerworld


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I ask again::
> ...


The huge huge, majority of guns in the US are _legally _unregistered; your characterization here is, at best, flawed.


> I don't see how my suggestion, which will prevent a lot of death and injury, can add to the negativity of registration.


How does the wholesale registration of firearms prevent death and injury?

Note that my original questions to you remains unanswered.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


But not under the effort of trying to limit the exercise of a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution, because those protections, found in various amendments, amend the power to tax.
You refuse to understand this.   Not sure why.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You guys always say that your ideas will prevent death and injury.....that is called magic thinking.......you say making guns more expensive will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....they steal them...that costs nothing....they give money to people who can pass all of your gun control laws to buy them these guns....bypassing your tax stamps....
> ...


Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 12, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Under the effort of trying?  Huh?  We are talking about a corrupt government that believes the ends justify the means... why do you think they are gonna be dumb enough to say the tax is for an effort to try to restrict access to the guns?  The tax is just the kick in the ass... the real hit to the pocket is when you are only allowed to buy guns manufactured before 2015.  Over time the old guns will go up in value by an order of magnitude all on their own. They have already proven they can tax guns, they have already proven they can restrict certain types. What makes you think they won't continue down that path?


----------



## MikeK (Jul 12, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.


My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms.  In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.

And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding?  Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding?  Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?  

I doubt you would have any problem convincing a gun dealer you know how to handle and use any gun you wish to purchase -- so what is your problem?  I don't think I'm suggesting anything as stupidly counterproductive as are magazine-capacity laws.  All I'm suggesting is a law that says if you don't know how to handle a gun you wish to own, learn how first.  

What's wrong with that?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.
> ...


Nothing.  Bonus, that goes with the goal of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.
> ...




if it is mandatory, then it can be manipulated to keep people from owning guns......what level of test can the government require before they "allow" you to exercise your right........they could easily mandate a prohibitive training requirement with the purpose of making it so hard to pass you could not get possession of the gun...

Look....we know how the gun grabbers think...you think you are clever....you think it is a small thing to require......gun grabbers don't...they will slowly ratchet up the requirements to the point they are impossible to met.....


and we aren't making things up....this is how it happens in foreign countries......they have months long training courses and regulations on using guns that make it impossible for everyone but the wealthiest to have the time and money to pass...

Denmark, in one story I have on the ease that criminals get guns in their country, the police there say you have to know over 1000 pages of information to safely operate a hunting rifle in Denmark....

so no.....there is no Ned to require that of gun owners, especially with YouTube....you can learn how to operate any gun you want on your own time for free and without any permission from the government...


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2015)

You guys think it is only "common sense" to require training...gun grabbers see it as a way to deny ownership....we know how they think and what they want.....no fucking way.....



Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard but terrorists have little trouble - The Washington Post


Hunting rifles are legally available only to those with squeaky-clean backgrounds who have passed a rigorous exam covering everything from gun safety to the mating habits of Denmark’s wildlife.

*“There’s a book about 1,000 pages thick,” said Tonni Rigby, one of only two licensed firearms dealers in Copenhagen. “You have to know all of it.”*


But if you want an illicit assault rifle, such as the one used by a 22-year-old to rake a Copenhagen cafe with 28 bullets on Saturday, all it takes are a few connections and some cash.

“It’s very easy to get such a weapon,” said Hans Jorgen Bonnichsen, a former operations director for the Danish security service PET. “It’s not only a problem for Denmark. It’s a problem for all of Europe.”

So.....no fucking way.....


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...



Most guns used by criminals, are sold on the street or by black market gun sellers.   Most criminals are not driving around to garage sales, looking for guns.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 12, 2015)

2aguy said:


> You guys think it is only "common sense" to require training...gun grabbers see it as a way to deny ownership....we know how they think and what they want.....no fucking way.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What if gun lovers merely are sent to help build better aqueducts and better roads, as a form of alternative sentencing should they have to "muster to splain themselves" before the Judicature.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 12, 2015)

“My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.”

In fact, totalitarian police state methods would fail to realize that goal. 

“And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive before getting a license to do so infringe on the rights of the law-abiding? Or does it serve to protect innocent people from incompetent drivers on the roads?”

False comparison fallacy, there is a fundamental right to possess firearms, there is no right to drive a car. 

Moreover, a requirement to demonstrate one’s competence to handle guns is un-Constitutional because it manifests as an undue burden on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, there’s no objective, documented evidence in support, and is devoid of a proper legislative end.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “My suggestion has nothing to do with preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. In fact I don't believe there is any truly effective way to do that short of totalitarian police state methods.”
> 
> In fact, totalitarian police state methods would fail to realize that goal.
> 
> ...




Did yo stop drinking to day clayton?....you are making sense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Yes.   The government has the power to tax; the power to tax does not extend to taxation intended to restrict the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.
That is, the state cannot constitutionally levy a $5000 tax on abortions in order to limit the number of women to choose to have one.
You refuse to understand this.   Not sure why.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 12, 2015)

2aguy said:


> if it is mandatory, then it can be manipulated to keep people from owning guns......what level of test can the government require before they "allow" you to exercise your right........they could easily mandate a prohibitive training requirement with the purpose of making it so hard to pass you could not get possession of the gun...


Suppose the decision were made to require such a basic competence test, and suppose you are appointed to design the program, do you think you could adequately prevent the kind of _manipulation_ you now are anticipating?

If you can't, I can.  And I'm sure there are many who could do a much better job than I.  The point being, it can be done.  And quite easily.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > if it is mandatory, then it can be manipulated to keep people from owning guns......what level of test can the government require before they "allow" you to exercise your right........they could easily mandate a prohibitive training requirement with the purpose of making it so hard to pass you could not get possession of the gun...
> ...


[/QUOTE]

No you can't....no one can because we don't live forever.  They just want it set up, no matter how weak and benign it is.....just get it started, because they can grow it as large as they want later....

Each accidental death will be followed with demands for greater levels of training....every shooting they will sneak more pages or required training into any gun control bill they can push...and they will sneak more requirements into any other bill they can sneak them in...

We know how they think, the tactics they will use and what their goal is....

No fucking way....

So no fucking way.....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.
> ...


Then it does not soundly address the OP.   Thank you.


> And how does a requirement to demonstrate ones competence to handle guns infringe on the rights of the law-abiding?


it is a precondition to the exercise of a right not inhere to same; as such, it is an infringement no more constitutional than requiring voters to prove they can read before allowing them to vote or that journalists are fluent in the subject matter before the can report the news.


> Does the requirement to prove you know how to drive....


Driving isn't a right and isn't protected by the constitution.  Apples oranges.


> I doubt you would have any problem convincing a gun dealer you know how to handle and use any gun you wish to purchase -- so what is your problem?


If the dealer himself wants to do that, I have no issue -- if I don't like it I can go to another dealer.
If the state requires him to do so, then it violates the constitution.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 12, 2015)

2aguy said:


> [...]
> 
> No you can't....no one can because we don't live forever.  They just want it set up, no matter how weak and benign it is.....just get it started, because they can grow it as large as they want later....
> 
> [...]


What you obviously do not understand is the means by which laws are subject to later modification is either *deliberate* or *negligent* failure of their authors to impose simple preventive safeguards, thus leaving a "back door" open.  In the example I am citing an effective safeguard may be imposed with a very simple, one sentence introductory paragraph, to read:

_*No change, alteration, addition, reduction, adjustment or modification to this directive may be applied or officially proposed at any time in the future, and for any reason, without full approval of the GOA and the NRA.*_

The only way the hypothetical directive might be altered is if the GOA and the NRA ceased to exist, or were compromised, or chose to allow alteration.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> 
> The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds.  Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street.  After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons.
> 
> Crack down on the manufacturers.  Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war.  Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.



How many crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons, that are already illegal?

And has banning anything ever worked before in human history?   How would you stop it?   If they don't follow the law, what law are you going to put in place to stop people who don't follow the law?

Even if you outlawed the production of all weapons, how would that stop people who don't follow the laws banning the production of weapons?

How exactly do you think any of what you suggested would stop anything?


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...









In California that is true, but here in Nevada I see gangbangers at yard sales looking for guns.  Our newspapers still have firearms adds in the classifieds as well.  All of these avenues would benefit from a background check.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well but here's the problem......

If you see a 'gangbanger', and he's buying a gun at a garage sale, and the owner knows he's a gangbanger and has no problem selling to him....  why would he bother caring about the background check?

Let's even say the owner did care.   The gangbanger sends his sister, or nephew or friend who is clean as a whistle, they buy the guy, and give it to them.

Now what?

This will not stop even one single solitary gun sale.  Not one.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...




Keep dreaming...tell that to the republican politicians who told us..."Don't worry, we'll let the Supreme Court defeat obamacare."


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 12, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...




Exactly....and you can make background checks, "universal" and "super dooper" and "extra special with sugar on top," and criminals will still get past them using someone who doesn't care about them and sells to a criminal anyway, or a person who can pass a background check will buy them the gun, or they will steal it.....just like they do now....


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 12, 2015)

MikeK said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of which have you shown will prevent criminals from getting guns; neither of which have you shown do not infringe the rights of the law abiding.
> ...



A constitutional right, is just that.   It's a right.  It's not a right... unless you can't demonstrate competency.  

You are basically justifying unintentionally, the black voting laws.   Now I'm not suggesting you are doing this intentionally, but regardless it's the same argument....

Oh yes you have the right to vote.... yes absolutely you do....  100% you have a constitutional right to vote.....  but first you have demonstrate competency to vote.  First can you read and write?   No?   Oh well then you can't vote, sorry.

Same argument.   Oh yes you have the right to defend yourself with weapons.  Absolutely!  You have the right to bear arms.   No question about it, you have the right to have and own a weapon....  but first you have to demonstrate competency....    Oh you can't yet?  Then never mind, you can't have a gun after all.

A "right" is a "right".  Not a "right unless you can't demonstrate competency".

That's what's wrong with that.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 13, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems.  Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets.  Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes.  Permit revolvers.  Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.
> ...


Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons.  Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians.  If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 13, 2015)

The class of property called Arms is always subject to the "Police Power".

_Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._


----------



## MikeK (Jul 13, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons.  Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians.  If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.


What specifically do you mean by "military weaponry?"

Anti-gun interests are fond of saying one does not need a military-type firearm for hunting or target shooting.  But the words _hunting_ and _target-shooting_ are not used in the Second Amendment -- the purpose of which is to enable the citizen to defend himself.  So what if the occasion arises when the citizen needs to defend himself against an oppressor who is armed with "military weaponry?"  

I am strongly in favor of the citizens' right to own guns.  But there should be a requirement that each gun owner knows how to safely handle and to use the guns he owns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 13, 2015)

MikeK said:


> I am strongly in favor of the citizens' right to own guns.  But there should be a requirement that each gun owner knows how to safely handle and to use the guns he owns.


A requirement that is no more constitutional than requiring voters to prove they can read before allowing them to vote or that journalists are fluent in the subject matter before the can report the news.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 13, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons.  Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians.  If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.
> ...


I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant for Persons of the People who are considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jul 13, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Fine gun makers if they produce any of the banned weapons.  Grant gun makers national charters to provide military weaponry, but not sale to civilians.  If we stop them at the source, the supply will dry up.
> ...


I agree that there should be a responsibility/competence requirement.  It must be understood that the misuse of guns through violence and malice as well as incompetence and irresponsibility.  As these shootings tragically extend into the innocent population, the misuse of guns represents a public health and safety problem.  The rights of the gun owner, as the rights of a man of the cloth or a journalist (the only profession mentioned in the constitution) or a farmer have to respect the havoc guns play in modern American society.

Now, as to "military weaponry", in my first post on this thread I laid out what civilian weaponry should be and what weans more properly belong in the hands of a "well regulated militia".

all long barrel weapons with either a bolt action in rifled guns or a pump action for shotguns.  Revolvers and single shot action firing mechanism in pistols would be examples of hand guns the citizens could bear.

Weapons with magazine clips containing nine or more rounds, weapons with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firing system would be banned and sold exclusively to national armed forces here and around the world.

Importation of the banned weapons would result in both criminal and civil penalties.  Trade between the United States and the nation where the Exeter or manufacturer operates would be suspended upon further review.

Then you ask about a better armed assailant.  Let me help you recall a real life event.  Four men are shot and wounded on the streets of a major east coast American city.  Two of the wounded men are armed.  One was rendered paraplegic for the remainder of his life.  One took a shot to the chest and was saved by emergency room surgeons.  And they were assaulted with a .22 caliber hand gun.

They were all surrounded by the best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel in world history.

The place was outside the Washington D.C. Hilton Hotel.  The date was March 31, 1981.  And the man with the chest wound was the President of the United States.  

A lot of 'good guys with guns' and yet they could not prevent the tragedy.

What sort of realistic threats are in the realm of probability in your neighborhood?  Are you living in Beirut 1984?  How heavily armed do you really anticipate an assailant could be?  Is there nothing you could not hit in your home with a 12 gage pump?

Not everyAmerican has had a pleasurable experience with guns.  Too many, far too many Americans have experienced gun violence and are calling for reason and respect to the constitution.  The second amendment, after all, in not a suicide pact.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 13, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...




Well...allow me to retort.......



> I agree that there should be a responsibility/competence requirement.



Then, in order to vote, there should also be a competence and responsibility requirement,   say...  200 dollar fee, a license of 150 dollars, and the individual must pass a comprehensive test on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the structures and functions of U.S. government.  They must also own their own home and have at least 10,000 in a savings or checking account.



> Now, as to "military weaponry", in my first post on this thread I laid out what civilian weaponry should be and what weans more properly belong in the hands of a "well regulated militia".
> all long barrel weapons with either a bolt action in rifled guns or a pump action for shotguns.  Revolvers and single shot
> action firing mechanism in pistols would be examples of hand guns the citizens could bear.



This is my proposal and no other offers of a lesser quality will be accepted....

The United States Citizen can own any and all small arms of the conventional, and unconventional U.S. military soldier, sailor or marine......as the U.S. Citizen is the employer, and not the subject of the various branches of the military the right of the U.S. citizen to own weapons will not be dictated by the government.



> Weapons with magazine clips containing nine or more rounds, weapons with a semi-automatic or fully automatic firing system would be banned and sold exclusively to national armed forces here and around the world.



Magazine bans are pointless and worse, foolish.  They do nothing to stop or prevent criminals or terrorists from getting standard magazines even in Europe where they are completely outlawed for citizens and in Central and South America where government murderers and drug cartel killers get them regardless of their being illegal in Mexico.  Fully automatic weapons would also be available to the general public if they are the arms of the U.S. military.  Again, criminals and terrorists get them easily even in countries with extreme gun control, namely all the countries in Europe...and Central and South America.



> Not everyAmerican has had a pleasurable experience with guns.  Too many, far too many Americans have experienced gun violence and are calling for reason and respect to the constitution.  The second amendment, after all, in not a suicide pact.



Each year on average 2 million Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives.

In 2013 the number of accidental gun deaths...505.

The number of illegal gun murders committed by career criminals for the most part, in 2013....8,454.

There are approximately 1 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the United States...the number of times they are used to commit crimes each year, usually less than 5 and not more than 10.

Out of a country with 1 million AR-15s in private hands...and the ones used to kill....are obtained illegally.

Guns are not an issue in our country.  Criminal gangs who control politicians in Chicago, and other cities and who are protected by those politicians are the problem...fix them, and you fix the gun violence problem.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 14, 2015)

727 posts. no sound response.


----------



## Coowallsky (Jul 14, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Not at all.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

729 posts...  no sound response...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 729 posts...  no sound response...


Bullshit you are merely putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the sound responses while screaming I hear nothing ... nothing..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 729 posts...  no sound response...
> ...


^^^
Lie.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Then address the points I made.  Or change your tune.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 16, 2015)

Better aqueducts and better roads.  That is my argument.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything.  Your moving the goal posts to the planet pluto does not coincide with the plain fact that the current tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced, considerably, the number of machine guns that are used in criminal activities.  Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.  I merely have to point to the fact that it's a process that has been around for SOME SIXTY YEARS OR SO NOW with out being removed as unconstitutional.  If you didn't like it you should have thrown it out as unconstitutional.

Nothing you have stated has refuted the fact that we already have this process for machine guns and silencers and that it can be in fact expanded to cover any other number of types of scary guns and scary accessories.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1.  Thank you.


> Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.


You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny

And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



there are over 1 million AR-15s  in private hands and they are sold at almost every gun store....yet, they are rarely used in crime.....tax stamps don't keep people from using "machine" guns, they just aren't used because they aren't practical for the criminal activities American criminals occupy themselves,with.......

Assault rifles are against the law in Mexico...and the drug cartels have complete,access to them......so again..tax stamps would do nothing to stop criminals from getting the guns they wanted.....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


No you are having problems again with the English language.   #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns".  Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1. As I have already stated the tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced the number of machine guns to less than the number of criminals that we have in this country.  Thus has prevented at least two criminal from getting two machine guns that would have otherwise been built and sold to the public had we not had this tax stamp process that prohibits manufacturing and selling new machine guns to the public.  That you don't get this just makes you look silly.  Now if you want to move the goal posts and rewrite #1 go ahead.  But then you will just have moved the goal posts to pluto and be asking for people to prove something can be done that can't be done.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


AR-15s don't apply to the tax stamp process.  AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles.  You don't seem to understand.  The tax stamp process for machine guns made it illegal for new ones to be built for public sale.  You can only buy machine guns that were built prior to the start of the tax stamp process.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




No, you don't get it.  You are saying that the tax stamp limited machine guns and therefore criminal use of machine guns is non existent...you are wrong.  I pointed out that AR-15s are easily accessible, and more effective than machine guns and yet they are still not used by our criminals....The tax stamp had nothing to do with how rare machine guns are in crime.  they are simply not a convenient tool for crime, and they don't need them.   You can put a tax stamp on pistols all day long and criminals will get them easily.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I did not say they were non-existent, did I?  Why are you making up lies about my statements?  Please refrain from making up bull-shit lies about what I have said. 

AR-15s are not more effective than machine guns.  That's just plain nonsense. The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.  To deny this is to show you're just not telling the truth.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Incorrect.   Please play again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> AR-15s don't apply to the tax stamp process.  AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles.  You don't seem to understand.  The tax stamp process for machine guns made it illegal for new ones to be built for public sale.  You can only buy machine guns that were built prior to the start of the tax stamp process.


Incorrect.
The tax stamp process began in 1934; the ban on 'new' machine guns began in 1986 on those manufactured after the inception of the law.
You argue from ignorance and/or dishonesty -- which is it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.


Prove this to be true.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I quoted your statement.  You may correct your statement, by restating it, or explain the corpus of BS that you think it means.  But I'm explaining to you very basic facts about English, and I'm not sure why you think I'm wrong my use of English.  Please explain why you think destroying two guns does not prevent criminals from getting those two guns that we destroyed.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
> ...


That's easy.  If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.  This is a basic fact.  To deny this basic fact is beyond ludicrous.  That you don't understand a thing can't be used after it no longer exists, well that just makes you look really silly.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Still not seeing anything worth responding to here.
Please try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


This has nothing to do with what you said.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Pull your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes then try to read it again.  What part of the fact that a thing that does not exist can't be used, is confusing you so much?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption.  FACT
They don't exist for general consumption because of the tax stamp process.  FACT

A quick search identifies that since 1934 there have been two deaths associated with the use of machine guns by criminals.  Let that sink into your haid.  TWO - JUST 2.  Do you need to see the number of deaths associated with guns that were not regulated by the tax stamp process? "240,000 fully automatic guns in the US, and only 2 deaths in 80 years"  why?  Because the tax stamp process turned those fully automatic guns into collectors items rather than tools to be used by criminals.  Why use a gun that costs 20k dollars when you can sell it to a collector who will put it in a box on display?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


They do.    There are a great many out there and they are available for purchase for anyone that can legally buy a gun.
The fact that you have to pay a transfer tax to buy one does nothing to prevent them from being used in a crime.
Fact.

And so, your point remains unproven.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


There part where you think you can parse the OP to make a point.
Its called "pedantry" and it means you know you are desperate to be right even though you know you cannot.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Why are you making up bull shit and trying to pass it off as fact?  This government does not hand out tax stamps for machine guns to Americans who are known killers.  This government will however buy you a machine gun if you are a member of a criminal cartel who is not an American.  Get your facts straight, you are embarrassing yourself.

You can't get a tax stamp if you are a criminal.  And you can't buy new machine guns at the store even if you are not a criminal because it's EFFING ILLEGAL TO SELL NEW MACHINE GUNS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.  What part of these VERY SIMPLE FACTS IS GOING OVER YOUR HEAD?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Pedantry?  Your OP statement was full of shit, admit it, and change your OP statement to what you really meant which is how can we stop criminals from flying to the moon and back to get a machine gun from china and then bring it back to the USA illegally.... your OP is complete bullshit.  Excuse me for telling you that you have no clothes on


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




And over 1 million AR-15s and even they aren't used in crime...why, they aren't convenient or concealable....that is why machine guns, which is a crew served weapon....that means it needs 2 or more individuals to operate it efficiently......

So if AR-15s are so easily acquired, as opposed to machine guns, and they are in almost every gun store in the country...why aren't they used more...especially considering all the media attention they get making them "cool."


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

Your tax stamp theory is crap.  AR-15s and other rifles of that nature are easily acquired and they are not used, and it has nothing to do with a tax stamp.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




And criminals can't have any guns at all.....and yet they get them and murder 8,454 people...in 2013.......so again, if they wanted machine guns they would get them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Your statement about ARs is moot.  UZIs and other machine pistols are also illegal, are also convenient and concealable.. if cheap and readily available would quickly become a weapon of choice for many types of criminals.  To deny this is ludicrious.  Additionally, our history was rife with criminals using tommy guns back before they were made illegal.  So no only is your AR point moot, it flies in the face of historical facts.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


If guns were made too expensive to own criminals would switch to bats and knives... so what?  It's not about stopping crime, it's about reducing the ability of people to defend themselves in an adequate fashion from government control.  The plain fact is you can reduce crimes that are committed with a certain weapon by making that weapon expensive as hell.  

You two are missing the point here.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




If guns were made too expensive only poor law abiding people couldn't get them.....the criminals would just steal them or buy them through people who can pass background checks, like they already do......

guns are completely illegal in France...that doesn't stop their criminals from getting fully automatic weapons and 30 round magazines easily.........so making them expensive won't stop them either....when you steal something it is free....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


How is that any different than today with machine guns?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It isn't.  Criminals don't use them because they use handguns because they are easy to conceal.  Mexico...where they are fighting government troops as well as other heavily armed drug cartels...they all have whatever guns they want...even though they are illegal there too...they import them from Russis, China and Europe....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


"it isn't".... 

Yeah well that's my point.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




No. Your point is that putting a tax stamp on guns will make them more expensive, my point is it won't matter because our criminals don't use them.  If our criminals wanted to use them, your tax stamp and increased price would not stop them...as it doesn't stop them in Europe or Latin America...


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 16, 2015)

Muster the militia and regulate them well.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 16, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

I'll try again.  Criminals used to use machine guns in this country.  Then we introduced the tax stamp process and stopped all new machine guns sales in this country.  Now machine guns are not used for crime in this country.  And in response you say well people still use guns in Europe?  Uhmm hello McFly!!! Anyone in there?

The next tax stamp will be for at least one of high caliber rifles "scary" sniper rifles or loading more then some number of rounds in a gun... probably 3 rounds going by what they did to shot guns in some states.

Again, it's not about stopping crime with guns, it's about making the population weak and put in a position to need more and bigger government to come to their rescue.


----------



## MDiver (Jul 16, 2015)

There is NOTHING to debate.  The highest court in our land has rendered its verdict and that is that we the people may own firearms to protect ourselves and our families.  You can't go higher than the Supreme Court.
Of the 75 to 80 million private gun owners like myself who possess the 250 to 300 million guns spread out over this great nation, almost NONE of them commit crimes.  We use them for hunting, sport shooting at targets, or collectibles (antiques).  The ones committing crimes are criminals who "steal" weapons, either from homes or from gun dealerships, then use them or sell them to other criminals.  Occasionally, some nut job who has a clean record gets one.  In China, a man stabbed many children in a school.  Another went about stabbing people in the street.  The Boston Bombers used a pressure cooker.  People have deliberately run people down with cars, killing them; still others have blocked exits of structures and burned people to death.  There's always going to be some nut job.  Just remain aware of your surroundings and if you see someone who you believe "might" be a danger, call a cop to investigate.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 16, 2015)

MDiver said:


> There is NOTHING to debate.  The highest court in our land has rendered its verdict and that is that we the people may own firearms to protect ourselves and our families.  You can't go higher than the Supreme Court.
> Of the 75 to 80 million private gun owners like myself who possess the 250 to 300 million guns spread out over this great nation, almost NONE of them commit crimes.  We use them for hunting, sport shooting at targets, or collectibles (antiques).  The ones committing crimes are criminals who "steal" weapons, either from homes or from gun dealerships, then use them or sell them to other criminals.  Occasionally, some nut job who has a clean record gets one.  In China, a man stabbed many children in a school.  Another went about stabbing people in the street.  The Boston Bombers used a pressure cooker.  People have deliberately run people down with cars, killing them; still others have blocked exits of structures and burned people to death.  There's always going to be some nut job.  Just remain aware of your surroundings and if you see someone who you believe "might" be a danger, call a cop to investigate.


Those rights are secured in State Constitutions not our federal Constitution which Only secures Due Process, not rights in property.



> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


----------



## MDiver (Jul 16, 2015)

The federal Constitution addresses the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court rendered its interpretation on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.  "We can own firearms."  This clearly trumps any and all state constitutions with regards to "gun ownership."  That decision does not address how many firearms, or how they are to be stored, only that ownership of a firearm is a citizens right.  State Constitutions may not conflict with or supercede matters addressed in the Federal Constitution.  The Supreme Courts responsibility is to render decisions on cases brought before them, as related to the Constitution.  I recall that much from my Constitutional Law class in college when going for my Criminal Justice degree.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jul 16, 2015)

I don't own a gun; and I fully attribute that to the federal government violating the second amendment and infringing upon my rights.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 17, 2015)

MDiver said:


> The federal Constitution addresses the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court rendered its interpretation on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.  "We can own firearms."  This clearly trumps any and all state constitutions with regards to "gun ownership."  That decision does not address how many firearms, or how they are to be stored, only that ownership of a firearm is a citizens right.  State Constitutions may not conflict with or supercede matters addressed in the Federal Constitution.  The Supreme Courts responsibility is to render decisions on cases brought before them, as related to the Constitution.  I recall that much from my Constitutional Law class in college when going for my Criminal Justice degree.


Those rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the terms, _acquire and possess_, not our federal Constitution which Only secures _Due Process_, not rights in property.  

Simply Because, our Founding Fathers really really were that wise.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 17, 2015)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> I don't own a gun; and I fully attribute that to the federal government violating the second amendment and infringing upon my rights.


I don't own a gun simply because I expect gun lovers to be _drafted first_ for any nationalized and socialized public policies the Right can come up with.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 17, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



And france has a very low rate of gun crime.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 17, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Because their criminals choose not to use guns...but they have easy access to them when they want or need them.  Europeans were always less violent because of their culture.   Of course, they did kill over 12 million innocent men, women and children by marching them off to death camps....let's not forget to add that to their total and to their guilt....


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 17, 2015)

I believe we merely need to end the extra-Constitutional Prohibition of our War on _Drugs_.  It was a mistake with alcohol and alcohol is a, powerful mood altering _drug_.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 17, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Again... it's not about reducing crime.  Gun control is about controlling guns.  If they wanted to control crime it would be called crime control.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 17, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




What?  Since none of the measures you or the other guys push would achieve gun control or crime control...what is your point?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 17, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


My point?  I thought we covered that.  The OP keeps claiming the gun control folks have failed to come up with a plan that would have an effect.  I pointed to the tax stamp process that did have an effect.  You can't deny that the tax stamp process has reduced the number of machine guns that are available to the public.  It's a fact that can't be escaped.

I'm personally against the tax stamp process.  I'm personally against pre-crime laws.  I'm personally against gun control in pretty much all forms.  Though I can see the merits of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of even law abiding citizens.  I don't think I need a bio/chemical weapons or even tactical nuclear devices.  I don't think the framers were talking about personal devices that could be used to take over the planet or anything of that scale.  But I might want to have my own tank.  You never know when you might need a tracked vehicle with a lot of armor plating.  Those IRS folks can be very persistent.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 17, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


People are committing crimes with guns; thus, as is claimed by some, control access to guns (with or without a prescription) and control access to the "persuaders" that may be used to persuade others to "hand over their money" through the coercive use of force without any authority of a State or a well regulated militia.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 17, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I believe we merely need to end the extra-Constitutional Prohibition of our War on _Drugs_. It was a mistake with alcohol and alcohol is a, powerful mood altering _drug_.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 17, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> I believe we merely need to end the extra-Constitutional Prohibition of our War on _Drugs_. It was a mistake with alcohol and alcohol is a, powerful mood altering _drug_.


This thread is about gun control.  Why are you trying to deflect it to drugs?  Why do you try to deflect every thread you are in to some other topic that is not even remotely related?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 17, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Because their criminals choose not to use guns...but they have easy access to them when they want or need them.  Europeans were always less violent because of their culture.   Of course, they did kill over 12 million innocent men, women and children by marching them off to death camps....let's not forget to add that to their total and to their guilt....



As if WW2 didn't happen. The whole "Europeans are less violent" argument is ridiculous.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 17, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You aren't using facts, just oppinion.  Fact is they have very low gun crime rates.  You hardly make them sound less violent.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 17, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> I have a paint ball gun.  I turned it into a paint ball machine gun with a twenty dollar part.  If I could legally convert
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> ...


Only the clueless and Causeless Right thinks that way:



> Other than driving up the demand for products like Coca-Cola, Prohibition was largely ineffective.  Americans continued to drink, although not at previous levels.  Organized crime quickly filled the vacuum of legitimate saloons and alcohol dealers, allowing this criminal element to move beyond the ethnic neighborhoods they previously dominated.  Mobster Al Capone owed his meteoric rise to the head of organized crime in Chicago directly to the policies of Prohibition.  Just as Capone dominated Chicago, different crime leaders used the prohibition of alcohol as an avenue to illegitimate riches in other American cities.  In the Bronx borough of New York City, gangster Dutch Schultz also worked his way up the organized crime ladder thanks to the opportunity to provide illegal alcohol.  Source: Prohibition and Crime


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Still waiting for you to prove your statement that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Yes,
Pedantry - definition of pedantry by The Free Dictionary
You've engaged in pedantry because you recognize that you cannot meet the challenge set to you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


The reason machine guns are not even a blip in American Crime statistics is because of the tax stamp process.
Prove I'm wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> The reason machine guns are not even a blip in American Crime statistics is because of the tax stamp process.


Prove this to be true.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > The reason machine guns are not even a blip in American Crime statistics is because of the tax stamp process.
> ...


Statistically, it's a fact.  We have a tax stamp process on machine guns, and we don't on all other types of guns.   FACT.  Statistically machine guns are barely used any crimes... best I can come up with is just twice in twenty years.  Statistically it's a fact.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


How easy is it to lug a machine gun around to commit crimes?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Still waiting for you to prove your statement true.
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 19, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Depends which one... micro uzi's pretty small.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


So what you really meant by this OP is you want someone to prove god exists.  As I stated already... without a machine gun in your hand you can't use it.  The number of machine guns that can be sold to public have been reduced.  Reducing even one machine gun reduces the number of machine guns that can be used at all.  These are plain facts that you can't deny.  But I expect you'll just move the goal posts again cause that's all you have.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Aren't those, technically, sub-machine guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I'll take that as your concession that you know you cannot prove your statement true.
Thank you.

794 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Liar.  I proved my point.  You simply won't listen.  You have your fingers in your ears.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You know that this is not true, because you know that the fact that Y follows X in no way proves that X caused Y.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is, you know you have proven nothing.

797 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Incorrect.  Just as a dead man can't perform any further acts on his own, a machine gun that is not manufactured and sold to the public is a machine gun that can't be used by the public.  Ergo, removing a gun eliminates it's use.  Ergo proof.  A gun that does not exist is a gun that can't be used.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your lie, it is still a lie.   Your statement remains unproven.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


No you are the one lying.  Your argument is that a machine gun that does not exist can be used to commit a crime.  You are full of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Your statement remains unproven.
You know this, you simply refuse to not lie to yourself.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Could you define "machine gun" please....because as the guy said...I don't think it means what you think it means....a machine gun is a crew served weapon............and gangs don't use crew served weapons.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




American criminals do not use "machine guns" because they prefer pistols.  European criminals prefer fully automatic rifles.  Criminal culture in different countries have different needs and tastes.  We have dealers who sell "machine guns" so they can be acquired.  Again, please explain that while we have over 1 million AR-15s in private hands, and they fill gun stores across the country, and can be had for as little as 800 dollars, fewer than 10 a year may be used in a criminal act......

Can you explain that.....?  Considering they don't have a tax stamp, and they actually exist...in vast numbers?


----------



## blunthead (Jul 20, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> 
> *If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns *and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
> Please proceed.
> Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.


Nothing can prevent criminals from having guns. That's why the rest of us must be allowed also to have guns. Period.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I'm using the definition used by the US Government with regard to the requirement for the tax stamp process.  "Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. A non-machinegun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is determined to be "readily convertible", and classed as a machinegun, such as a KG-9 pistol (pre-ban ones are "grandfathered")."


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Simple question:  Can a gun that does not exist be used? Yes or No


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

blunthead said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him.  He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
> ...


Incorrect, the non-existence of certain guns can reduce the number of those certain guns that criminals have access too.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2015)

Well regulated militias of the People could obviate our perceived need for socialized "welfare spending on the poor" for a War on Crime for free, merely to help stop creating more crime.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 20, 2015)

Has anyone actually stepped back and read this conversation.

One premise is that if you take all guns they can do no harm.

That point is true, but what you fail to take into consideration is the gun is simply a tool, like a knife or axe.

Either of those can be used to kill, do we treat society as children and put up all dangerous things??

You actually think this could be physically completed??

How about we change the attitudes of others to respect human life??

As long as an individual wants to commit harm on / to another, until that thought process is changed, you can't remove all the things a society can use to harm one another.

Women who get acid thrown in their face, shall we next remove all batteries from our society, all drain cleaners, and all commercial pool products??


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Has anyone actually stepped back and read this conversation.
> 
> One premise is that if you take all guns they can do no harm.
> 
> ...


As per the weapons on the list of class II banned weapons, the reduction has been clearly successful.

Yes, changing attitudes is a good idea.  Unfortunately, the Authoritarians on the left and right are more interested in dividing us with class warfare and wars on drugs and wars on that which we fear (Terror).  So, the change in attitudes that we are teaching is one of hate for the other side.  Hate for successful people, hate for gay people, hate for old people, hate for young people, hate for inner city people, hate for rural people, hate for southern people, hate for yankees, hate for white people, hate for black people, hate for hispanics, hate for ....


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone actually stepped back and read this conversation.
> ...




Well of course, without civil discourse and civil unrest, which will eventually lead to civil war. how will the left ever get that utopia they so fantasize about??


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


Well that certainly is their game plan.  Course the left is also in control of the republican party.. see famous leftists that have been given the nod to run as leader of the leftist organization called the republican party... Bush Jr., McCain, Romney?  ROFL  Let's see, who's the furthest left of all republicans... yeah let them run in the primary as the only leftist on the primary ticket against 12 conservatives and let the conservative vote get split up while the leftist vote the leftist to the pole position based on the MSM saying look the moderate (communist) is getting the most votes, republicans you have no choice but to vote for the republican communist the democrat communist will win ROFL  talk about a set up.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Well that certainly is their game plan.  Course the left is also in control of the republican party.. see famous leftists that have been given the nod to run as leader of the leftist organization called the republican party... Bush Jr., McCain, Romney?  ROFL  Let's see, who's the furthest left of all republicans... yeah let them run in the primary as the only leftist on the primary ticket against 12 conservatives and let the conservative vote get split up while the leftist vote the leftist to the pole position based on the MSM saying look the moderate (communist) is getting the most votes, republicans you have no choice but to vote for the republican communist the democrat communist will win ROFL  talk about a set up.




Seriously man, when you get back to reality about primaries send me a memo, till then quit showing your ignorance in public.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Well that certainly is their game plan.  Course the left is also in control of the republican party.. see famous leftists that have been given the nod to run as leader of the leftist organization called the republican party... Bush Jr., McCain, Romney?  ROFL  Let's see, who's the furthest left of all republicans... yeah let them run in the primary as the only leftist on the primary ticket against 12 conservatives and let the conservative vote get split up while the leftist vote the leftist to the pole position based on the MSM saying look the moderate (communist) is getting the most votes, republicans you have no choice but to vote for the republican communist the democrat communist will win ROFL  talk about a set up.
> ...


What part of the conservatives split their vote in the republican primary confused you?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




What part of only one nominee comes out and anyone else can run Independent / write in ..........................


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


What part of 12 people on the ticket one person is a libtard and gets 30% counting states were democrats can legally vote on the republican ticket and where the 11 conservatives split the 70% up into small percentages confuses you?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


FYI A conservative republican did run on the Libertarian Ticket.  The main street media did not even let him enter the debates and the Republicans insisted that voting for a conservative on the libertarian ticket instead of socialist Romney on the republican ticket would ensure a democrat victory.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Wow  for a field where no one has 30% currently, you sure have unrealistic expectations.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


I was talking about the prior primaries after the first votes from the first states.  We have yet to get to the first primary vote for this election season.  Try to keep up.  

But you watch.. the leftist media will pick the left most republican of the bunch then push him as the candidate elect.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Your statement remains unproven.
If you can prove it, - and you know you cannot -- you need no help from me.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Exhibit A:  Only the biggest moron on the planet would ever attempt to claim that a weapon THAT DOES NOT EXIST, HAS NEVER EXISTED, AND NEVER WILL EVER EXIST was in fact used to commit a specific crime by a specific criminal.  Yet the OP continues to insist that there is no way to prove that the weapon THAT DOES NOT EXIST, HAS NEVER EXISTED, AND NEVER WILL EVER EXIST was not in fact used to commit a specific crime by a specific criminal.

Translation, either the OP is delusional as the OP believes in the existence of that which does not exist or the OP is the biggest moron on the planet.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Yawn.
I have a machine gun -- a Class-III M14 - for which I paid the transfer tax.
How does the fact that I - or anyone else with w legal class-III firearm - paid that tax prevent me from committing a crime with my M14?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




You still didn't answer my question....

Since there are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands, and they are in almost every gun store in the country, and they can cost as little as 800 dollars....

Why arent they used more in crime?  Since you don't have to have a tax stamp for them and they are all over the place...so they actually exist....why aren't these weapons that actually exist.....used more often?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That's not what I said.  What is your dysfunction?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Ah.   So you cannot show how the tax stamp process prevents machine guns from being used in a crime.
Thank you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Asked and answered multiple times.  And here is the same answer.. 

Again... it's not about reducing crime. Gun control is about controlling guns. If they wanted to control crime it would be called crime control.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That's a lie. I've already shown how the tax stamp process prevents certain machine guns from being used in certain crimes.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Still not addressing my question...

Since there are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands, and they are in almost every gun store in the country, and they can cost as little as 800 dollars....

Why arent they used more in crime? Since you don't have to have a tax stamp for them and they are all over the place...so they actually exist....why aren't these weapons that actually exist.....used more often?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




No you haven't.... have you defined "machine gun" yet....please so we can all be on the same page as to what you mean....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2015)

Which one of these definitions is the one you are using....

Machine gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You have done no such thing, and even if you had, it does not prove your claim.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes, I have I linked to the definition being used by the tax stamp process.  You can call it what you want, I'm using the government specified term.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes I have, and yes it does.  If a thing does not exist it can't be used.  You're bluffing, and I called your bluff.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Which one of these definitions is the one you are using....
> 
> Machine gun - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Neither, I'm using the one the ATF uses for the Tax Stamp process.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




How do you explain that AR-15s and AK Variants aren't used that often?  Since they actually exist....and have no tax stamp requirement?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 20, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Ok, simple.  AR-15 is type of rifle.  Shoulder fired rifles and shot guns are not used often in the commission of felonies.  Pistols are the gun type of of choice for the vast majority of felonies committed with a fire arm and also police shootings.  Mostly because pistols are smaller they are easier to carry and conceal.  This makes them the right weapon for close in uses.  Where a rifle is more for shooting at a distance.  That said, machine guns and sawed off shot guns are also very good for close in fights and smaller versions are also concealable.  You'll note that the tax stamp process also killed the use of sawed off shotguns and machine pistols.  There was a time in our colored past when the use of sawed off shot guns and machine guns saw an increase in use.  Then the crack downs came.

Back to rifles... When you start talking about mass murders the percentage of use of rifles goes way up.  See tower shooter in Austin TX.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 21, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I have a machine gun -- a Class-III M14 - for which I paid the transfer tax.
How does the fact that I - or anyone else with w legal class-III firearm - paid that tax prevent me from committing a crime with my M14?
Still waiting for an answer.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 21, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


That's not what I said. What is your dysfunction?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 21, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You claimed that the tax stamp process prevents criminals from using machine guns in crime.
You may now answer my question.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 21, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Did I say that?  Where?  How about you learn to quote me instead of being a pussy.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You argue that the tax stamp process is why machine guns are virtually never used in crimes
You have done nothing ti support this claim; you cannot show how the tax stamp process in any way prevents people with machine guns from committing a crime.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


And there you go again moving the goal posts.  Why don't you prove that you can't use a machine gun on the planet pluto.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


^^^^
Proof that you know you cannot support your claim.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Liar.  I proved support for my claims.  As for your lies about what I said... yeah those were just pussy ass lies that you made up.  Again, learn to quote people without changing the meanings of their statements.

The proof lied within the fact that you can't use a machine gun that does not exist.  Or perhaps you can explain to us how you will use a machine gun that does not exist.  What are you gonna do with your imaginary machine gun point your finger and say bang?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Yawn.
Restate your premise, just so we are clear.  Copy and paste the original claim and cite the post number.
Prove that premise.
Good luck.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist.  This is not a hard question.  Any rational person could answer this question.  Why do you insist on being irrational?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


-Restate your premise, just so we are clear.  Copy and paste the original claim and cite the post number.
-Prove that premise.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


-Restate your premise, just so we are clear. Copy and paste the original claim and cite the post number.
-Prove that premise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 22, 2015)

Since you do not have the testicular fortitude to stand and deliver:

Post 741:


> The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.


Tens of thousands of guns have been legally transferred to individuals under this process -- prove your claim that the tax stamp process is the reason these guns have not been used in crimes.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 22, 2015)

You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Fail:  You.
Disagree?
Soundly respond to post # 850.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




really...that is the best you have to offer.......you know your idea is stupid, but you thought it was clever, and now that it was shown to be stupid....you will fight for it regardless how desperate that fight is..........

Why on earth would the tax stamp process limit the use of a sawed off shotgun?  Did you really think that through...you can get a quality shot gun for about 300 dollars or less, back when I picked one up......and then you can cut the end off....how exactly did the tax stamp process stop crimnals from using a hack saw?

Really.....try a little harder.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 22, 2015)

I was at the gun store today...over 50 AR-15 style rifles on the walls or racks in plain sight......that didn't include the AK variants, or the lever action rifles, or the other rifles they had.....

So tell me how the tax stamp keeps them out of the hands of criminals?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


How about FUCK YOU ya dumb ass piece of shit?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> I was at the gun store today...over 50 AR-15 style rifles on the walls or racks in plain sight......that didn't include the AK variants, or the lever action rifles, or the other rifles they had.....
> 
> So tell me how the tax stamp keeps them out of the hands of criminals?


You must be the dumbest human being on the planet.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 22, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
> Fail:  You.
> Disagree?
> Soundly respond to post # 850.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > I was at the gun store today...over 50 AR-15 style rifles on the walls or racks in plain sight......that didn't include the AK variants, or the lever action rifles, or the other rifles they had.....
> ...




Yeah says the stupid fuck who thinks tax stamps keep criminals from getting "machine" guns.......you sir, are the stupid fuck....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Wow...clever reply...........are always this clever....?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
> ...


You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Fail: You.
Disagree?
Soundly respond to post # 850.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


He's aping the typical anti-gun loon -- and doing a great job of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

861 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You're a fucking moron that thinks guns can be used even when those guns do not fucking exist.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 861 posts, no sound responses.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 861 posts, no sound responses.
> ...


You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Fail: You.
Disagree?
Soundly respond to post # 850.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Really...who believes that.....You are the fucking moron who thinks putting a tax stamp on something makes them disappear.....you should try pixie dust next...it works just as well......


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Because it is hysterical watching you push this stupid point.........


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


The tax stamp process includeS ENDING ALL SALES TO THE PEOPLE (PUBLIC) OF MACHINE GUNS BUILT AFTER A CERTAIN DATE, YA MORON.  THOSE OLD WEAPONS THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BUY... THEY ARE QUICKLY BECOMING HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS, ANCIENT HISTORY.  THE TAX STAMP ITSELF IS JUST ONE SMALL ELEMENT OF THE PROCESS, YA MORON.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


THE REASON YOU ARE HYSTERICAL IS BECAUSE YOU ARE A MORON.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




It gets funnier every time you post it......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




If they want "machine" guns, they will get them.....here or over seas....and of course that they don't us AR-15s for crime just points out how stupid your idea is......


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


It's not my idea you dumb fuck.  I did not invent the tax stamp process you dumb fuck.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




You support it and are promoting it...right?  Something that is pointless and stupid...right?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


No, I don't support it.  No, I'm not promoting it.  I told you so multiple times now.  Apparently you have a memory loss problem.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You did, however, state that:


> The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.


You continue to refuse to prove your claim that the tax stamp process is the reason the tens of thousand of legally owned machine guns have not been used in crimes.

You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Fail: You.
Disagree?
Soundly respond to post # 850.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Fail: You.
Disagree?
Soundly respond to post # 850.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Fail: You.
Disagree?
Soundly respond to post # 850.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Not sure why you don't get it.  Would you take a working rare classic car to a bank heist?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Fail: You.
Disagree?
Soundly respond to post # 850.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Disagree.  I have proven my claim.  You changed my statements every time. You change the OP every time.  Words have meaning.  Changing the words changes the context.  All I have to do to prove my claim is prove that a gun can't be used if it does not exist.  Your claim is well they'll just find another one.  That's not what I'm claiming.  I'm not claiming that someone can't use a different weapon.  I'm claiming that a gun can't be used if it does not exist.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


All of these statements are lies; you clearly choose to only argue from ignorance and/or dishonesty.
That said, here is no sense in continuing this discussion with you - please run along and let the adults talk in peace.

882 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You refuse to prove your claim because you know you cannot.
Please run along and let the adults talk in peace.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Please run along and let the adults talk in peace.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Please answer the question.  Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


And...  you're done.  Buh-bye.

888 posts, no sound repsonses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 27, 2015)

890 posts, no sound response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 27, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 890 posts, no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Jul 27, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 890 posts, no sound response.


Can I ask what it is that you are wanting to see said here? Because saying it yourself may be the only way to get it up here.   

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 27, 2015)

JOSweetHeart said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 890 posts, no sound response.
> ...


A sound response to the OP.
Surely, if there is one, someone can supply it - thought 893 posts say otherwise.


----------



## Teddy Pollins (Jul 28, 2015)

I believe that any "true" American needs no gun absolutely. Weapon is something that makes our country worse and more aggressive. We must not be proud of our so called gun culture. We must just learn how to live without guns. You are not strong because of weapon. You are stronger when you feel safety without it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> I believe that any "true" American needs no gun absolutely. Weapon is something that makes our country worse and more aggressive. We must not be proud of our so called gun culture. We must just learn how to live without guns. You are not strong because of weapon. You are stronger when you feel safety without it.




Guns are the tools that allow the weak to fight off the strong......we should be very proud of that....

Do you actually study crime...here in the U.S. and around the world.....or the difference guns make in saving lives here and around the world......

Gun murders in the U.S. for 2013 were 8,454....

Guns are used on average 2 million times a year to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives...

I am proud of that...that is regular, law abiding, peaceful Americans, going about their lives and keeping violent, vicious criminals from destroying those lives....


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2015)

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues.


----------



## Politico (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> I believe that any "true" American needs no gun absolutely. Weapon is something that makes our country worse and more aggressive. We must not be proud of our so called gun culture. We must just learn how to live without guns. You are not strong because of weapon. You are stronger when you feel safety without it.


Man you are an idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 28, 2015)

Teddy Pollins said:


> I believe that any "true" American needs no gun absolutely. Weapon is something that makes our country worse and more aggressive. We must not be proud of our so called gun culture. We must just learn how to live without guns. You are not strong because of weapon. You are stronger when you feel safety without it.


That you see no "need" for a gun in no way diminishes my right to have them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 28, 2015)

899 posts, no sound response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 899 posts, no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 28, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 899 posts, no sound response.
> ...




That keeps getting funnier.......


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2015)

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Sometimes the truth is funny as hell. Sometimes it's just the truth. Sometimes the truth is there for you to learn something from.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2015)

no sound response.

am i too honest and too open for gun lovers?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Jul 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Guns are the tools that allow the weak to fight off the strong......we should be very proud of that....


I agree. What are people who can not take up for themselves supposed to do when their lives are being threatened?

God bless you and them always!!! 

Holly


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 28, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




No...what is funny when you keep posting that nonsense...about tax stamps making machine guns disappear.......when they are still available to anyone who wants them.   

And again...why don't criminals use AR-15s more......they are not that big a weapon, and are readily available for reasonable prices...especially if you steal them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun *that does not exist.* This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 28, 2015)

908 posts... no sound response.


----------



## Brain357 (Jul 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 908 posts... no sound response.



You live in fantasy land.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 908 posts... no sound response.


908 posts... and the OP is still deflecting from the FACT that the tax stamp process has reduced, SIGNIFICANTLY, the number of machine guns available TO THE PUBLIC, thus providing a working solution to the OPs question.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 28, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 908 posts... no sound response.
> ...



What up Brown, the stamps have cut down on fully automatic weapons available to the general public.

Used to you could go to the local gun store and get fully automatic Uzi's and lower receivers for many sportster style long guns.

Here in Georgia the tax stamp for a fully automatic weapon is $25.00 .................

Contrary to popular belief, fully auto weapons can be and are in possession of private citizens.

I don't see what the minor monetary fee does to deter machine guns as much as the regulation and accountability for manufacturers and distributors who vend these parts and weapons for monetary gains.

In the black market / sub culture there will always be fully automatic weapons to contend with.

Tax stamps will have zero influence on their existence / trade. 

It is much easier to stop the flow from the source out, than the bottom up ........................


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 28, 2015)

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yeah I'm talking about the entire tax stamp process, which includes the draconian law that bans all civilian access to fully automatic weapons manufactured post 1986. The cost of the stamp is pretty much irrelevant ATM but they could make it as much as they want now.  The part that matters is the banning of all new machine guns for civilian use.  Now you have to be in security or work for the government to get a new one. Bastards.  Which of course is why pre 1986 machine guns are selling for an order of magnitude more than what they are worth.

First they start with a simple tax stamp and a database.. then they come in with the blankety blank laws that ban weapons of a certain type and use their process to administrate it all.  But hey if you have more money than 90% of the population you can afford to out bid the other folks to buy one of the old ones that are starting to fall into disrepair.  Oh but that's ok you can't afford the ammo anyway since you are fighting the government for access to that too and they have their hands in our back pockets to pay for their ammo.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 28, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> [
> Yeah I'm talking about the entire tax stamp process, which includes the draconian law that bans all civilian access to fully automatic weapons manufactured post 1986. The cost of the stamp is pretty much irrelevant ATM but they could make it as much as they want now.  The part that matters is the banning of all new machine guns for civilian use.  Now you have to be in security or work for the government to get a new one. Bastards.  Which of course is why pre 1986 machine guns are selling for an order of magnitude more than what they are worth.
> 
> First they start with a simple tax stamp and a database.. then they come in with the blankety blank laws that ban weapons of a certain type and use their process to administrate it all.  But hey if you have more money than 90% of the population you can afford to out bid the other folks to buy one of the old ones that are starting to fall into disrepair.  Oh but that's ok you can't afford the ammo anyway since you are fighting the government for access to that too and they have their hands in our back pockets to pay for their ammo.




No, all you need is a gun smith or a machinist who is qualified to modify the lower receivers.

Would not know for sure but with the advent of carbon nano fibers for 3D printers, working lower receivers may be a thing easily accomplishable.

If you want to limit civilian fire power you limit the amount of available primers on the market and ammunition.

That is why they tried to ban the green tip .223 NATO rd.

If you don't have ammo, those black powder muskets are gonna be pretty much useless ........................


*Is The Obama Administration The Cause Of Gun Ammunition Shortages?*
Comment Now
Follow Comments





 (Photo credit: Cory M. Grenier)

The reason for the ammunition shortage should be obvious. After all, with gun sales continuing to break records all those people buying semiautomatic rifles and handguns need a lot of ammunition. Anyone who has used a semiautomatic rifle or handgun to shoot self-resetting steel targets knows that ammo always seems to be in short supply.

Nevertheless, finding bare shelves that have always been stacked with boxes of ammo has made some wonder if the government has been up to something.

It’s easy to understand this worry. As gun sales break records—partly because of fear of coming gun control from the Obama administration—supplies of ammo ran so low that gun stores and ranges have to ration ammunition. Meanwhile, rumors of mass purchases of ammunition made by government entities began to fly around the Internet. Making all this even worse is that fact that it hasn’t been a short-term supply problem. Now well over a year since the shortages of popular types of ammo began there are still empty shelves and rationing here and there around the United States.

Mix this series of events with a media that doesn’t understand the issue enough to explain it (even if they could drop their biases long enough to try), add a pinch of understandable paranoia from some gun owners and _ka-boom!_

Such an explosion, in fact, that many ammo makers have felt compelled to publish explanations. Also, the National Rifle Association (NRA) felt compelled by its membership to investigate and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for gun, ammo and related businesses, decided to look into the problem. There was even a congressional hearing.

At the hearing, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees, noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using roughly 1,000 rounds of ammunition more per person than the U.S. Army. “It is entirely … inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition,” said Chaffetz.
Is The Obama Administration The Cause Of Gun Ammunition Shortages - Forbes


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Sure you can make a fully automatic weapon.  And if you get caught it's probably gonna be a decade in the pen.


----------



## BlackSand (Jul 28, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Sure you can make a fully automatic weapon.  And if you get caught it's probably gonna be a decade in the pen.



Not to mention Randy Weaver's wife was eventually shot as the results circumstances that initially involved a sawed off shotgun.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Yeah I'm talking about the entire tax stamp process, which includes the draconian law that bans all civilian access to fully automatic weapons manufactured post 1986. The cost of the stamp is pretty much irrelevant ATM but they could make it as much as they want now.  The part that matters is the banning of all new machine guns for civilian use.  Now you have to be in security or work for the government to get a new one. Bastards.  Which of course is why pre 1986 machine guns are selling for an order of magnitude more than what they are worth.
> 
> First they start with a simple tax stamp and a database.. then they come in with the blankety blank laws that ban weapons of a certain type and use their process to administrate it all.  But hey if you have more money than 90% of the population you can afford to out bid the other folks to buy one of the old ones that are starting to fall into disrepair.  Oh but that's ok you can't afford the ammo anyway since you are fighting the government for access to that too and they have their hands in our back pockets to pay for their ammo.


None of this proves your claim that...


> The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.


Tens of thousands of guns have been legally transferred to individuals under this process -- prove your claim that the tax stamp process is the reason these guns have not been used in crimes.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I'm talking about the entire tax stamp process, which includes the draconian law that bans all civilian access to fully automatic weapons manufactured post 1986. The cost of the stamp is pretty much irrelevant ATM but they could make it as much as they want now.  The part that matters is the banning of all new machine guns for civilian use.  Now you have to be in security or work for the government to get a new one. Bastards.  Which of course is why pre 1986 machine guns are selling for an order of magnitude more than what they are worth.
> ...


You're not listening.  Or you are incapable of listening.  Or you are just deflecting.  What I proved is that the part of the tax stamp process that reduces the number of machines guns available for public sale to civilians, clearly reduces the number of machine guns, period.  Additionally since there are more civilians than there are machine guns built prior to 1986 that were set to be allowed for use by civilians, there is a limit to the number of civilians that can possibly have legal ownership at a single point in time of said weapons.  Essentially it boils down to the OBVIOUS FACT that when a machine gun is destroyed or not even allowed to be built and sold, that machine gun can't be used, EVER.  As for your continued attempts to move the goal post from reduction of crime to PROOF OF COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF ALL CRIME AROUND THE WORLD BY EVERY HUMAN BEING IN EXISTENCE FROM HERE TO THE END OF TIME IMORTAL..  well that's just a stupid ass attempt to move the goal posts.

The OP question was "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns."  Destruction and/or making it illegal to build and sell machine guns to civilians reduces the number of guns available to criminals.  Thus, prevents.  Prevents does not mean eliminate all access.. the bar for prevention is reduction not elimination.  Thus preventing some access is equivalent to preventing / or making it harder to access.

*Full Definition of PREVENT*
1a:  to be in readiness for (as an occasion)b *:*  to meet or satisfy in advancec *:*  to act ahead ofd *:*  to go or arrive before
2*:*  to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
3*:*  to keep from happening or existing <steps to _prevent_ war>
4*:* *to hold or keep back : hinder, stop —often used with from*
_*Examples of PREVENT*
_


_

*Seatbelts in cars often prevent serious injuries.*

*Can exercise and a healthy diet prevent heart disease?*

*The accident could have been prevented.*

*He grabbed my arm to prevent me from falling.*

*Bad weather prevented us from leaving.*

*How are you going to prevent him from finding out about the party?*
_
_Here's my example... the tax stamp process prevents criminals *from *getting guns.  Said another way... the tax stamp process hinders criminals from getting guns._


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> You're not listening.


I am.
You said:


> The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.


I responded:


> Tens of thousands of guns have been legally transferred to individuals under this process -- prove your claim that the tax stamp process is the reason these guns have not been used in crimes.


You have yet to do so.
Because you know you cannot.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


But as I am sure you will agree, the reason machine guns are not used in crimes is NOT because of the tax stamp process. contrary to his claim.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > You're not listening.
> ...


Your request for me to prove that martians do not exist on pluto has nothing to do with my statement.
My statement that the reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process, is easily proven by answering the following question... WHICH YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER....why do you refuse to answer the following question?  At this point, I can only assume it is out of cowardice.

Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?

If you say yes you can use a gun that does not exist... well then you are a liar.  If you say no, you can't use a gun that does not exist... well then the tax stamp process includes the elimination of new guns for civilians which translates to... some number of guns that can't be used because they don't exist... which then translates to hindering use of machine guns... which then translates to preventing... Which is the proof for my statement that the reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.  You'll note that I did not say the reason stolen machine guns are not used in crimes... you'll also note I did not say the reason machine guns built prior to 1986 are not used... you'll also note I did not say the reason any and all existing machine guns in existence are not used... no that's not what I said is it?  Read my statement... read my question.. answer the question... follow the logic.  It's irrefutable. 

The tax stamp process has further made machine guns built prior to 1986 more expensive by orders of magnitude, and the tax stamp process extends the amount of time necessary for people to get machine guns built prior to 1986... all of which hinder aka. prevent.  The prevention provides a reason machine guns (some or even just a couple) are not used is because of the tax stamp process.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


922 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Machine Guns aren't used in crimes??

I'm guessing you didn't Google before you made that statement.

I'm also guessing these guys did not have tax stamps.

[Snip]
7
The Brinks Armored Car Shootout




On October 20, 1981, more than 10 members of the Black Liberation Army attacked the two drivers on an armored truck outside a bank at the Nanuet Mall in Nanuet, New York. At 3:55 PM, the drivers were hit by fully automatic M-16 fire, and handgun fire, one dying instantly, and the other surviving, but almost losing his arm. The robbers stole $1.6 million and fled in a van, to a nearby parking lot where they changed to a U-Haul truck.

Police converged on the mall, and a college student called to report the vehicle change, after which, four police officers stopped the U-Haul and another get-away car, and were immediately engaged by the robbers. One suspect, a woman, pretended to be innocent and convinced the police to lower their guard, whereupon, six men jumped out of the back of the U-Haul with M-16s and body armor, and opened fire.

Two officers were killed, the other two wounded. The last officer to keep fighting, Brian Lennon, was unable to exit his car, and fired his shotgun through his windshield at the robbers, attempting to ram him with the U-Haul. They fled the scene, some on foot, some in their second vehicle, others carjacking a civilian.

They were apprehended over the next 6 years, following an extensive investigation, and all received long prison sentences. The Brinks guard who survived, Joe Trombino, died in the WTC, on September 11, 2001.
Top 10 Most Audacious Shootouts in US History - Listverse

The first one that came to mind for me would be LA "

The North Hollywood Shootout




On February 28, 1997, Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu attempted to rob the North Hollywood Bank of America. Perhaps inspired by the epic shootout scene in the 1995 film “Heat,” they were extremely heavily armed, with 9mm Berettas; fully automatic AK-47s with drum clips, an HK-91, and an AR-15. They wore homemade body armor of Kevlar sewn around steel trauma plates. They took Phenobarbital to calm their nerves, then walked up to the front door of the bank, put on ski masks and entered at about 9:17 AM. They expected to be in and out within 8 minutes, before police could arrive.

Unfortunately for them, a police cruiser with two officers drove by and saw them put on their masks, and radioed in a possible 211 in progress. The robbers began shooting fully automatic rifle fire into the ceiling, forced the vault open and stole $303,305 in cash. They then forced the 30 or so hostages into the vault, and exited the bank, at 9:38, and initiated the most awe-inspiring hailstorm of domestic violence in United States history.

It lasted for 44 minutes, during which 10 officers and 7 civilians were seriously wounded. The police fired 650 rounds of various small-arms ammunition at the robbers. The robbers fired 1,300 rounds in exchange. They used armor-piercing rounds, which penetrated the officers’ cruisers and vests. The officers, however, could not penetrate the robbers’ armor with their .38 revolvers, 9mms, and 12-ga shotguns.

The robbers shot at a helicopter, which refused to leave, and broadcast the entire battle. Matasareanu entered a white four-door sedan, while Phillips opened the door and retrieved additional drum clips, and continued to fire at officers. The police took cover behind their cars, behind buildings and tollbooths. They were so terribly outgunned that many fled the confrontation to nearby gun stores, and requisitioned AR-15s and M-16s, then returned to the fight.

The robbers were hit hundreds of times but continued shooting unabated. Civilians attempted to flee the area and were shot down indiscriminately. Phillips followed his accomplice down a residential street firing in all directions, until he was hit in the left thumb. His HK-91 jammed, and he dropped it, pulled out his 9mm and returned fire at the officers approaching. His 9mm jammed, and as he cleared it, he placed it under his chin and shot himself dead as an officer shot him.

Matasareanu drove on into the neighborhood. He commandeered a civilian pickup truck and almost fled the scene when the SWAT team arrived. He got out and fired fully automatic rifle fire at them through his own windshield. Some of the SWAT team members were unable to penetrate his armor even with M-16s, with rounds bouncing off, but eventually began wounding him in the torso and arms. They also shot under both cars at his feet. This brought him down, and he died of gunshot wounds before an ambulance could reach him.

Miraculously, not one police officer or civilian died. 19 officers were awarded the Medal of Valor, the police equivalent to the military’s Medal of Honor.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


Talk to RKMB -- it's -his- argument.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 29, 2015)

*Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto*
Posted May 21, 2014 in Other Gear & Gadgets by Alex C. with 45 Comments
Tags: Full-auto, machine guns, nfa






I love machine guns. They don’t call the selectors on automatic firearms “fun switches” for nothing, and I have yet to hand off a machine gun to someone and have it not bring a smile to their face (it brings me joy exposing people to full auto for the first time). For the sake of this article, the word “machine gun” will meet the ATF’s definition: _Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger._

The machine gun was invented here in the USA by Hiram Maxim, and interestingly enough, the USA is one of the few countries on the planet where regular folks can in fact own a fully automatic firearm. In fact,* machine guns have never been illegal in the USA* on a federal level. They are heavily regulated, but not illegal at all.

The timeline of machine gun legislation is as follows:

Prior to 1934, machine guns were not regulated any differently than any other firearm. You could quite literally order a machine gun from a mail order catalog… and people did. Thompsons for example initially did not interest the military too terribly much, but the guns found a niche with individuals seeking personal protection, police agencies, and unfortunately, gangsters. Ads like this were not uncommon:





Prompted by prohibition era gangsters and the rise of organized crime (law enforcement was seriously outgunned by the likes of bad guy like Dillinger), the United States drafted the National Firearms Act which passed in 1934. The National Firearms Act did not ban machine guns, but it made them impossible to afford for most people. To buy a machine gun under the 1934 NFA, an individual needs to submit the following (the procedure remains unchanged even today):


Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500
Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
Submit photographs
Submit passport photos
Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application
Wait for the results of your background check to come back
A violation of the national firearms act results in a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison, a $100,000 fine, and forfeiture of the individual’s right to own or possess firearms in the future.

The next big piece of legislation pertinent to machine guns occurred in 1968 with the Gun Control Act. The Gun Control Act established that imported firearms that had “no sporting purpose” were not able to be sold to civilians. Machine guns as a whole were determined to have no sporting purpose, and thus any MG imported after ’68 are able to be owned only by dealers, military, and police agencies. One bit of good this act did was allowed for a registration amnesty. It became apparent that there were so many unregistered machine guns in the US that had been brought back by veterans, that they should be able to register them tax free. Luckily many of them did, but the amnesty ended after just one month (the feds owe us another few months, this humble author believes).

The last piece of machine gun legislation is to many the coup de grace. In 1986 the Firearm Owners Protection Act was intended to prevent the federal government from creating a registry of gun owners. At the last minute, William Hughes added an amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Charlie Rangel said that the “amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.” However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed. The bill passed on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. Thus, Reagan’s signature banned the registration of new machine guns in the USA.

So what does this mean? This is where it gets complicated:


Machine guns are not illegal, but it is illegal to make and register new ones on a form 1 (as you would do for an SBR)
There is no way around the May 19th, 1986 date. if the machine gun in question was made after that date, you may not own it (unless you are a dealer)
Also, there are three types of machine guns that determine the gun’s legal status:


*Transferable: *Guns registered prior to May 19th, 1986 that are able to be owned by everyone. There are only 182,619 transferable machine guns according to the ATF.
*Pre-Samples:* Machine guns imported after 1968 but before May 19th, 1986. The 1968 GCA established that machine guns with no sporting purposes could not be sold to civilians. Dealers can however buy them and keep them after they give up their licenses. As a general rule, pre-samples cost about half that of a transferable.
*Post-Samples: *Machine guns made after the May 19th, 1986 cutoff date. These are only for dealers, manufacturers, military, and police. A manufacturer who pays $500 a year is permitted by the federal government to manufacture these. A dealer (who is not a manufacturer) may acquire these if a police agency provides a “demo letter”. A demo letter is simply a letter from a PD asking you to acquire a sample gun for them to test and evaluate for potential purchase. Unfortunately dealers must sell or destroy post samples when they give up their license.
So that is that. I have looked and looked to try and find out NFA facts and a window into the registry, but most of it is internet lore and information from manufacturers records. I have seen the following as per estimates of how many of what exist:
a. 7,200 Hk sears

b. 6,000 FNC sears

c. 20,000 M11/9s

d. 500 SWD Lightning Links

e. 500 RIA M60s

f. 3300ish Group Industry (aka Vector) Uzi’s

g. At least 20,000 M16s

h. The NFA records are completely messed up , the ATF says the error rate on pre-68 records is 50%.

i. You have to assume that probably 10 to 20% of the 183K registered guns are easily gone now since 1943 (lost, stolen, damaged beyond repair). You have to remember that prior to 86 there wasnt a whole lot of value in a damaged M16 when the transfer or making tax was 1/3 the cost of the gun itself. Similar to suppressors today, who buys a used or damaged can when 25% of the value is in the transfer tax and you could just buy a new one from a dealer.

As a result of the closed registry, we cannot get new machine guns. We simply trade the ones that have been out there for years. This has resulted in very high prices. For example, one can get an AR15 for $600-700 in the USA, but I have seen converted automatic AR15s sell for $17,000. Factory Colt guns can go for $25,000+. Uzis which were a few hundred dollars back in the day are now bringing $12,000! This has created a small fiat driven marketplace for an extremely low amount of goods with an insanely high demand. For example, this here is a rather unremarkable piece of steel:





The bit of hardened steel is a registered Fleming HK sear. I have seen one sell for $27,000 so at roughly 0.25  ounces, that makes this steel worth $108,000 an ounce which makes it perhaps the most expensive metal on the planet (barring some obscure lanthanide or actinide) and 83 times more expensive than gold!

However, as the value on machine guns very seldom goes down, you could probably get your wife to understand your desire to buy one with the old “it’s an investment honey”. It sure is an investment too. I bought my first MG in January of 2010 for $3,000, and it is now worth $5,500. That is a 54% return on my purchase in just four years! I wish that all of my investments were like that one, and this even encouraged my father to get into the game (he even bought himself a machine gun not too long ago as an investment he can enjoy). That said, I would gladly take the monetary hit on my collection if others and myself could acquire post samples freely like they can suppressors.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


FYI 1981 is prior to 1986 and 1997 was last century.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto*
> Posted May 21, 2014 in Other Gear & Gadgets by Alex C. with 45 Comments
> Tags: Full-auto, machine guns, nfa
> 
> ...


Incorrect.  Machine guns that are made today for our military, law enforcement, and security personal can not be sold to civilians.  You are ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED FROM BUYING NEWLY MANUFACTURED FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.  It is ILLEGAL FOR A CIVILIAN TO PURCHASE A FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON BUILT AFTER 1986.  1986 is going on THIRTY YEARS.  That means the only fully automatic guns you can get are ones that are THIRTY YEARS OLD.  Because we have been pussified into accepting this at any point they can just make that date 1786 and we would have to bend over and take it.  How would you like to be limited to purchasing weapons that are over two hundred years old?  Do you get it yet?  Those 30 year and older guns are not going to get any younger are they?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Incorrect.  Machine guns that are made today for our military, law enforcement, and security personal can not be sold to civilians.


^^^
Someone did not read the post he responded to.

929 posts, no sound response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect.  Machine guns that are made today for our military, law enforcement, and security personal can not be sold to civilians.
> ...


I don't know who that someone is, but I did read his post.

Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > *Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto*
> ...




Tell that to Europe....they don't have any machine guns...any, available legally to European Citizens and yet their criminals prefer them......and in Sweden, the rape Capitol of Europe, their criminals use guns and hand grenades.....do you think they used a tax stamp to make hand grenades non existent in Sweden...because apparently they are throwing them around like confetti in inter gang killings in their immigrant (muslim) communities.....

RKM.....perhaps you could contact Sweden and tell them about tax stamps....they could try them out on their hand grenades.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 29, 2015)

Again....they could get military grade rifles if they wanted them.....they don't want them.....criminals in Europe use them....criminal culture difference nothing more.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



Again.  The tax stamp process is not about reducing or even eliminating crime.  That's why it's called gun control.  It's about controlling legal access to guns.  If it was about crime they would call it crime control.  No that's not what it's about.  It's about taking your "legal" right to own and use guns away from you.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 29, 2015)

Hmmmm...machine guns, modern ones, are illegal in Mexico.....do the drug cartels have a hard time getting them.......even if they were tax stamped?  And they are right next door with a huge, porous border.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Why would any sane person want to take guns away from free citizens...you are odd RKM......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Oh...  so you repeated what he said for no apparent reason.


936 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Because they want to be taken care of by the government.  They want the government to defend them.  They want the government to wash their ball sacks for them.  They want the government to take all rights and freedoms from everyone and tell them what they can and cant do.  They want to be a child again who is taken care of by their mommy and daddy who in this case are government employees.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Again.  The tax stamp process is not about reducing or even eliminating crime.  That's why it's called gun control.  It's about controlling legal access to guns.  If it was about crime they would call it crime control.  No that's not what it's about.  It's about taking your "legal" right to own and use guns away from you.



So this would be the same premises marijuana tax stamps serve??

They worked so well on pot, we got it everywhere now and it's damn near legal .....................


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Liar.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Again.  The tax stamp process is not about reducing or even eliminating crime.  That's why it's called gun control.  It's about controlling legal access to guns.  If it was about crime they would call it crime control.  No that's not what it's about.  It's about taking your "legal" right to own and use guns away from you.
> ...


Yeah pretty much.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Please feel free to cite the post that soundly responds to the OP.
You will not because you know you cannot.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




you're an idiot ................


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Asked and provided dozens of times, and each time, like a coward, you deflected.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


I see, so according to you agreeing with your point makes me an idiot.  Interesting.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Thank you for proving me correct.
Please continue to do so at your leisure.
945 posts, no sound responses.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 29, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


Yes, guns were used; but would these incidents have occurred if those Persons could have simply applied for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines on an at-will basis so they could be couch potatoes instead of developing a "work ethic" to privateer their way into some money.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


^^^
Running away from the truth.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 29, 2015)

950 posts, no sound response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 950 posts, no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 950 posts, no sound response.


No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

I have no problem with gun lovers registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 30, 2015)

953 posts, no sound response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 30, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 953 posts, no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 30, 2015)

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

This is a _sovereign State's right_ regarding gun lovers and the_ police Power of a State_ that is secured by our Second Article of Amendment; registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

----
Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 30, 2015)

956 posts,. no sound response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 30, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 956 posts,. no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 4, 2015)

958 posts, no sound response.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 4, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 958 posts, no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 4, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 958 posts, no sound response.


No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

This is a _sovereign State's right_ regarding gun lovers and the_ police Power of a State_ that is secured by our Second Article of Amendment; registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

----
Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2015)

961 posts...   no sound response.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 6, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 961 posts...   no sound response.


No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

This is a _sovereign State's right_ regarding gun lovers and the_ police Power of a State_ that is secured by our Second Article of Amendment; registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

----
Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 6, 2015)

963 posts...  no sound response.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Aug 6, 2015)

^^^ Whatever has not already been said yet, you can always get it up here yourself at anytime.   

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 6, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 963 posts...  no sound response.


  No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?

  This is a sovereign State's right regarding gun lovers and the police Power of a State that is secured by our Second Article of Amendment; registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

_Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

Can gun lovers explain why it is not a necessary and proper use of the _police power_?

  ----
  Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

  Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 8, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 963 posts...  no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 8, 2015)

Well regulated militias of the several United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; and, may Infringe upon any posse in any county, should the security needs of a free State require it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 8, 2015)

2AGUY SAID:

“Why would any sane person want to take guns away from free citizens...you are odd RKM...... “

And you're an idiot and a liar – no one seeks to 'take guns away' from anyone.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 8, 2015)

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express terms, acquire and possess; even in case of need for a posse.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 2AGUY SAID:
> 
> “Why would any sane person want to take guns away from free citizens...you are odd RKM...... “
> 
> And you're an idiot and a liar – no one seeks to 'take guns away' from anyone.


I'm gonna guess you have not heard about the law that we already have that bans the manufacture and sale of fully automatic machine guns to the public.  It's a matter of fact and law that we already do ban new machine guns.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 8, 2015)

Registering for posse duty could involve being issued the latest in communications and gps technologies-when on duty.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 2AGUY SAID:
> 
> “Why would any sane person want to take guns away from free citizens...you are odd RKM...... “
> 
> And you're an idiot and a liar – no one seeks to 'take guns away' from anyone.




And you are a fucking fool......


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 8, 2015)

Muster points could be established as necessary even while en route, and potentially have full squad cars arrive at any given scene.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 9, 2015)

974 posts, no sound response.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 9, 2015)




----------



## danielpalos (Aug 9, 2015)

Having one squad car with four Persons instead of two squad cars with two Persons respond to any potentially serious situation could lower our tax burden and end our War on Crime, and that form of socialism paid for with the other Peoples' money instead of other Peoples' guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


>


Think so?
Maybe you are correct - maybe my point -has- been made.
Certainly, in 977 posts, there has been no sound response.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 10, 2015)

We could end our alleged War on Crime that the Right cannot justify with wartime Tax rates.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express terms, acquire and possess; even in case of need for a posse.


You may not be a liar but you are as much an idiot as the OP.

The 5th Amendment of the Federal Constitution prohibits government from taking private property absent due process and just compensation. The Takings Clause requires government to afford citizens a fair hearing with a neutral magistrate before any private property can be 'confiscated,' to determine whether or not the government's action is justified.

The 4th Amendment prohibits government from searching for property to be 'confiscated' without a warrant, and the Second Amendment prohibits government from 'banning' the possession of all firearms.

Consequently, given these Constitutional safeguards, the notion of 'gun confiscation' is ignorant idiocy.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 10, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express terms, acquire and possess; even in case of need for a posse.
> ...


What if there is no federal jurisdiction?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express terms, acquire and possess; even in case of need for a posse.
> ...


Says he who knows he cannot soundly argue against said OP.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 11, 2015)

Nothing but diversion for your "gospel Truth" Cause?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2015)

983 posts, no sound response.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 11, 2015)

Why only complain about social spending on the least wealthy when it may benefit them and not social spending that merely denies and disparages our privileges and immunities.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 11, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 983 posts, no sound response.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting?  How many times have you been a pussy and deflected from every sound response?


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > 983 posts, no sound response.
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 12, 2015)

Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric on the part of gun lovers; some on the left, get it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 12, 2015)

2aguy said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Hard not to laugh, isn't it?
988 posts, no sound response.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 12, 2015)

No honesty or openness on the part of gun lovers?  too much "hard work" apparently; slackers.

This is a sovereign State's right regarding gun lovers and the police Power of a State that is secured by our Second Article of Amendment; registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

_Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

Can gun lovers explain why it is not a necessary and proper use of the _police power_?

----
Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 14, 2015)

990 posts, no sound response.
Will we get to 1000?
Betting so...


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 14, 2015)

Posse comitatus.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 16, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 990 posts, no sound response.
> Will we get to 1000?
> Betting so...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting? How many times have you been a pussy and deflected from every sound response?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 17, 2015)

993, still counting...


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 17, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 993, still counting...


I believe we could use better aqueducts and better roads; why not employ gun lovers who may present themselves before the Judicature for breaches of the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States, and lower our tax burden by returning more well regulated citizenry to the populace.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 17, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 993, still counting...


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting? How many times have you been a pussy and deflected from every sound response?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 18, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 993, still counting...


and, still no honesty and openness on gun lovers' "one way street".

This is a sovereign State's right regarding gun lovers and the police Power of a State that is secured by our Second Article of Amendment;  registering for posse duty whenever it may be required, in exchange for keeping and bearing Arms in public venues; and, not Only that, avoiding posse duty should be as serious as avoiding jury duty.

_Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

Can gun lovers explain why it is not a necessary and proper use of the _police power_?

----
Lower our Tax Burden and end that involuntary income transfer by ending our War on Crime.

Only Bad Socialists and worse Capitalists have a War on Crime, paid for with the (other) Peoples' money.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2015)

997 posts...  almost to 1000....
And no sound response to the OP.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 18, 2015)

I gave you a sound response and my political position.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 18, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> 997 posts...  almost to 1000....
> And no sound response to the OP.


Yes or no, can you or can you not use a machine gun that does not exist. This is not a hard question. Any rational person could answer this question. Why do you insist on deflecting? How many times have you been a pussy and deflected from every sound response?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

And....  post 1000!
Not a single sound response to the OP.
Proof positive, as I figured.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 19, 2015)

Why do you believe gun lovers should not be required to register for posse duty if they want to keep and bear their Arms in public venues?

There is no appeal to ignorance of posse comitatus as a Traditional police power of a county.


----------

