# Why anti gun people are so angry.....



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......

Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns

We’ve noted for a while now how nasty the forces of civilian disarmament have become in recent years. Since their failure to significantly move the anti-gun needle after Newtown — an opportunity they saw as a sure thing for rolling back Second Amendment rights — the gun-grabbing community seems to have ratcheted up (or down, really) the venom and vulgarity. One of our readers, Ozallos, posited the following theory under our post, ‘Why Are Anti-Gunners So Vile? – ConcealedNation.org Reads Their Hate Mail’ . . .

Ok, here’s the deal. You own a gun. They don’t. Or by their very ethos _can’t_. You have taken the responsibility of security upon yourself and are secure in that fact. Again, they aren’t. You’re a threat to the philosophy they believe in and there are very few ways they have in order to express that frustration. First, they must have somebody else take your guns. Empowering somebody else with guns to take your guns is hypocritical at its very core, but seen as a necessary evil . . .

The ends justify the means and if a few eggs need to be broken, /shrug. You need to burn the village idiot to save him or something.


----------



## tinydancer (Mar 21, 2015)

Whoa! Amazing quote from that bitch Shiva. I am very female and trust me I never have needed a penis extender in my life. Unreal. But obviously I must be a mutant according to her because I love guns.


----------



## bucs90 (Mar 21, 2015)

They're angry because they're all liberal hipster douchebags who have grown trendy hipster beards and cant shave them now out of principle. ...who have to tolerate crime out of sensitivity to race...who cant support war despite barbaric acts by American enemies......who have realized they are morons for taking out 100K in student loans for that 4th cultural arts college degree....and are angry that their worthless degree didnt guarantee a 250k job at a huge company advising its employees on general social wisdom from 11-4 monday through thursday.

In short...they're miserable fucking losers.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)




----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

bucs90 said:


> They're angry because they're all liberal hipster douchebags who have grown trendy hipster beards and cant shave them now out of principle. ...who have to tolerate crime out of sensitivity to race...who cant support war despite barbaric acts by American enemies......who have realized they are morons for taking out 100K in student loans for that 4th cultural arts college degree....and are angry that their worthless degree didnt guarantee a 250k job at a huge company advising its employees on general social wisdom from 11-4 monday through thursday.
> 
> In short...they're miserable fucking losers.



All that ignorance in one short post.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)




----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


>




Thanks for being the example of what this post is about...that took courage...something not seen very often in anti gunners.....


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> 
> Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns
> 
> ...



Angry people aren't thinking clearly. If they were, they'd no more blame firearms for violence than they do cars for drunk driving accidents.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> 
> Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns
> 
> ...



Have you seen some of the things said about me?  I'd say the gun nutz are just as angry.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> ...



It is a little more complicated than that....don't ya THINK?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No not really. Look at how many ugn owners there are vs how many incidents of gun violence. If guns correlated to incidents of gun violence we'd have far more incidents than we do.

Criminals account for gun violence, not law-abidding gun owners.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> ...




Yeah....some are....but the anti-gun nuts are really angry....


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


>


Right on cue, here's the toddler outlook.

Gun grabbers are liberals and liberals are immature people. Kids that never grew up. They didn't want to and don't have to and the bigger government gets there is less need for maturity and personal responsibility. It's like living at home and mom and dad are supposed to protect you.

They are angry for the same reason any child gets angry, they didn't get their way. It isn't complicated.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check. 

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal *should* be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



A TOTAL emote...LOL


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




"And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check. "

Look at automobile accidents. Your logic applies to that as well. Wanna ban cars too? Are cars the problem, or irresponsible drivers?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Did you actually research the issue or just listen to anti-gun talking points.....all sales from all dealers go through background checks...sales by private individuals intent on selling guns to criminals are not stopped now or will they be stopped by any new background check system....

They don't need to buy guns in back alleys....they have freinds and relatives who can bypass background checks buy the guns for them..or they steal them and sell them...from the trunk of a car...the same place where they buy their illegal drugs...already....

Want to stop criminals from getting expert advise on guns...then you have to shut down the internet.....


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Total fart. But that's all you ever have.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Gun grabbers don't care about criminals getting guns....we know how you think we know what you want....

the call for "universal background checks" is a way to get guns registered, and a way to make it tougher for people to give or sell guns to friends and family...by making it more complicated, more expensive and more at risk of breaking a law they don't understand.....and that is what they want....people who are afraid to buy guns....

The current system is flawed already....more law abiding people get false positives and are turned down for guns than criminals trying to sneak past the system.......and the criminals still get the guns they want and need....


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Try to think like an adult.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I notice when ever people can't refute me they try insulting me instead.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Maybe YOU should do some research before you open your pie hole.

"How strict would gun laws have to be to prevent massacres?" 

Strict enough to prevent a criminal from buying guns in the safety, comfort and sanction of a gun show without having a background check run on him. There IS a loophole in the gun show law that allows a big gun dealer to pose as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing a background check. 

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be occasional sellers are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an occasional seller  it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not engaged in the business of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner.

What is the gun show loophole? 

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.


Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.
_

The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks  and theres no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]

Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.
...........*ATF concluded that gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.[iii]


Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting: In March 2010, John Bedell  who was prohibited by law from possessing guns  shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.

Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution: Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks._


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


How many crimes are committed with guns bought at gun shows?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




You obviously don't realize how dumb this is........they are going to sell guns to criminals regardless of how many ways you try to increase background checks.....that is all this shows....if a gun seller doesn't care about the law...he isn't going to obey it...already....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




You realize that this anti gun group is lying...right?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Here is some actual research........where do actual convicts get their guns....

Fewer than 1 percent of state prison inmates obtained their guns at the time of offense from gun shows costs of regulations exceed benefits - Crime Prevention Research Center








What is interesting is the remarkable consistency of the rate that criminals obtained their guns from gun shows (a copy of the earlier report is available here).

One problem with using these surveys is that people think that if one were to actually stop all criminals from obtaining guns from gun shows or through some other way, that will actually stop the criminals from getting guns. Yet, even when there are complete bans on guns criminals are still able to obtain them. Given how much of violent crime is drug gang related and given how hard it is to stop drug gangs from getting illegal drugs to sell, it is just as difficult to stop these drug gangs from getting the guns that they need to protect their very valuable drugs. Thus, it isn’t too surprising that background checks on private transfers has beneficial no impact on crime rates (see here or here).

Gun show regulations do have a cost. Almost everyone all those stopped by background checks are false positives — a law-abiding citizen who shouldn’t have been stopped. Other delays extend beyond the length of the gun show — the delays can usually take up to three business days to clear and gun shows only last for two days over a weekend. So even if you buy a gun at the very beginning of a gun show (say Saturday morning), the federal government has until Tuesday morning before a seller is allowed to complete the sale, but by that time the people who have traveled all the way to the show are long gone. For 2002 to 2006, 92 percent of checks were completed during the initial call by the dealer. About 3 percent of background checks take up to two hours to complete. Another 2 percent take up to 3 business days and 3 percent take 3 full business days. Even a two hour delay can mean the difference between whether the a sales occurs. After all, the next stage of the background check won’t begin until the first business day, which will be after the gun show has packed up and left. That implies that if you try waiting in hopes that the delay will only take two hours, there is a 63 percent chance that you will wait the 2 hours and still not be able to get the gun.

Forcing the gun dealer to wait on the telephone for up to a couple of hours means that the dealer can’t be making other gun sales.

A third problem is that there apparently more breakdowns occurring in the computer background check system. When the system breaks down no sales can be completed. Under the Clinton administration, the system was down for about 6 days each month. That problem essentially disappeared during the Bush administration, but it appears to be back under Obama, though the administration no longer keeps detailed data on how long these delays are.

We know how gun grabbers think....they want these background checks to make it harder and more expensive for regular people to get guns.....because while they know criminals can always get guns no matter what laws the gun grabbers pass....those laws will stop regular people from getting guns....and that is what matters most to them....


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> ...


It is because you are infantile and stupid, not so much because you are anti-gun.


----------



## timslash (Mar 21, 2015)

Because gun owners often post same stupid arguments and because nobody wanna understand them.
Because stupidity of gun owners is too high to understand too!
And of course - guns aren't necessary, your comments will be the answer.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Here is some actual research........where do actual convicts get their guns....
> 
> Fewer than 1 percent of state prison inmates obtained their guns at the time of offense from gun shows costs of regulations exceed benefits - Crime Prevention Research Center
> 
> ...


We can't go after welfare fraud because "the cost of regulation exceeds the benefits", but, anti-gunners would gut the Constitution over
a tiny fraction of gun purchasers who are in violation of the law.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

And this is the hidden gun control efforts by democrats in power....



> A third problem is that there apparently more breakdowns occurring in the computer background check system. When the system breaks down no sales can be completed. Under the Clinton administration, the system was down for about 6 days each month. That problem essentially disappeared during the Bush administration, but it appears to be back under Obama, though the administration no longer keeps detailed data on how long these delays are.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2015)

I think there is a lot of anger on both sides of pretty much every issue.   The days of civil discourse are, sadly, long gone.

This is part of why I am considering either severely limiting my time on the various forums, or avoiding them altogether.   Spouting hate is not constructive or conducive to accomplishing anything at all.   The people who can consistently discuss an issue in a civil manner are few and far between.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> I think there is a lot of anger on both sides of pretty much every issue.   The days of civil discourse are, sadly, long gone.
> 
> This is part of why I am considering either severely limiting my time on the various forums, or avoiding them altogether.   Spouting hate is not constructive or conducive to accomplishing anything at all.   The people who can consistently discuss an issue in a civil manner are few and far between.




Well....in the old days....you would call out a jerk and have a duel.....was that more or less civil than today...?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a lot of anger on both sides of pretty much every issue.   The days of civil discourse are, sadly, long gone.
> ...



In the "old days" there were rarely any duels over disagreements on political matters.  Today there are damn few who discuss an issue without calling names or going ballistic.

Being a jerk is not a capital offense.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



See here is my point.  While making a childish comment he calls me infantile.  Oh boy.  And I'm not even anti gun.

I think everyone really needs to chill though.  Some of the nicest people I know are gun owners and the same can be said for anti gun people.  Discuss things in a civil manner.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't understand the constant name calling and swearing . I can live with both , just don't understand either !!


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

Some anti gunners are alright I guess Brian , that is until they try and work to limit or infringe RIGHTS !!     When they infringe or try to limit RIGHTS then they become keyboard enemies and need to be fought !!


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> I think there is a lot of anger on both sides of pretty much every issue.   The days of civil discourse are, sadly, long gone.
> 
> This is part of why I am considering either severely limiting my time on the various forums, or avoiding them altogether.   Spouting hate is not constructive or conducive to accomplishing anything at all.   The people who can consistently discuss an issue in a civil manner are few and far between.



Yes think I'm about to take a break from it all.  The good thing based on voter turnout is that the real uncivil ones I hope are a very small minority....


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

see you later Brian !!    Course , I hope that you are at least replaced as pro gunners need anti gunners and their arguments as example for all to see !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



HOW many are acceptable?


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

look at this article about the coming OPEN CARRY in Texas .  Me , I just laugh but these anti gunners are little kids and they want restrictions or total disarming , see what you guys think .    ---   Texas gun bills taking us back to Old West days The Star Telegram The Star Telegram  ---   uh , you might like it Brian !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



You are vile.  The reason why I call you names is because you are a dishonest hack piece of crap with an agenda.  You ignore data and links provided to you.  You outright lie.  YOU claim you are not anti-gun yet post anti-gun rhetoric in EVERY single gun thread.  You are a liar and a traitor to the American people.  I hate you.  That's why I call YOU names.  A lying dishonest sack of crap is all you are.  YOU have earned every single name I've called you.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




But should it be..............?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



And again the angry gun nut.  Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> ...



   People tend to get a little pissy when you try and take away their 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Here is some actual research........where do actual convicts get their guns....
> 
> Fewer than 1 percent of state prison inmates obtained their guns at the time of offense from gun shows costs of regulations exceed benefits - Crime Prevention Research Center
> 
> ...



Stop projecting your lack of ethics on me. I am not a gun grabber. I am a citizen who wants to stop unethical gun sellers from abusing the law and using the gun show loophole to sell guns without a background check.

Interesting, you cite a scum bag liar like *John Lott*  who is a right-wing author who has made claims about the benefits of guns using fabricated evidence. To support his points on the Internet, he adopts various pseudonyms (known as sock puppets) who write in supporting John Lott and giving his books good reviews.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Angry anti gun nut is YOU.  You want to leave women defenseless against rapists who may even murder them, and even go so far as to say that women can fight off a rapist and that men are NOT stronger than women.  You are a piece of shit.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

good , Brians replacement is already here in the person of Bfgrn !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some actual research........where do actual convicts get their guns....
> ...



That's what you ALL say.  You are all the same.  YOU want to take away rights from citizens, then in the next breath, people like you will complain that the police are all racists.  Sorry, but someone needs to inform you all that you are idiots.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> good , Brians replacement is already here in the person of Bfgrn !!



They are ALL the same.  They all spew the same garbage.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> And look at the carnage an assault weapon can cause in mere seconds in a public place. And look at how easy it is for a criminal to walk into a security safe gun show, and buy any weapon he desires without a background check.
> 
> And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.
> 
> But, that's where the criminal *should* be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.



You know that's not true,  right?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



And those who want to leave women defenseless against the men that would prey upon them.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No, but what SHOULD be is people wanting to take rights away from the citizens.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



  Hmmmm...maybe thats why brain wants women defenseless.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some actual research........where do actual convicts get their guns....
> ...



AS you post from a site that is ANTI GUN.  Idiot.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

there you go Chrisl , God made man and woman but Sam Colt made them all equal !!     Course what you said applies to all people that can be  strong , weak , disabled or old man or woman .     Why wrestle on the ground with any criminal that is trying to rob , intimidate any person with threats of violence ??


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

These anti-gunners will try and drag Dr. Kleck's name through the mud, without acknowledging the fact that he is actually a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, who at one time was anti-gun until he did some research and realized that he was WRONG.  Dr. Kleck is a respectable man who changed his opinions on guns because he realized he was wrong and he cares more about the FACTS than the dumb anti-gun rhetoric.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

good catch 'herewego' I didn't notice that Bfgrn was posting some anti gun sites stats .


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> there you go Chrisl , God made man and woman but Sam Colt made them all equal !!     Course what you said applies to all people that can be  strong , weak , disabled or old man or woman .     Why wrestle on the ground with any criminal that is trying to rob , intimidate any person with threats of violence ??



Exactly.  Why should any woman or disabled or elderly person be put in such a position just because some anti-rights people don't like guns?  They are heartless and only care about their ideology.  I just cannot respect a person like that.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...




It's just a few days past the one year anniversary of the SXSW Tragedy.  Four killed,  20+ injured,  when Rashad Owens intentionally drove his Honda through the crowded SXSW event in Austin, Texas...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



  Time to ban cars and black people.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> good catch 'herewego' I didn't notice that Bfgrn was posting some anti gun sites stats .



But pro gun stats are acceptable, from a guy who takes funding from one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 21, 2015)

"Why anti gun people are so angry....."

There is no such thing as 'anti-gun people,' consequently no one is 'angry.'

No one of consequence or merit seeks to 'ban' firearms, or compel their 'confiscation.' The vast majority of Americans from one side of the political spectrum to the other support the right of the individual to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense.

The problem, as usual, concerns the extremism on the right, where some conservatives attempt to contrive 'guns' into a 'political issue,' and exhibit their ignorance of the law by maintaining that the Second Amendment right is 'absolute' and not subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

The conflict, therefore, has nothing to do with anyone being 'anti-gun'; rather, the conflict is between those who correctly understand that there are necessary and proper restrictions that can be placed on weapons the Constitution deems 'dangerous and unusual,' and those who reject this fundamental principle. “[T]he 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[...]the [Second Amendment codifies the] historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” _DC v. Heller _(2008)


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


You failed to answer the question.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't use stats or numbers Bfgrn , numbers are not my argument . I'm more common sense and focus on the individual home owner , woman , weak , strong or diasabled person on the street , their home or anywhere in the USA .  And then I focus on the RIGHT to be armed which is God given or at least a natural RIGHT.   Yeah , I don't use numbers to try to justify my guns to people that want to restrict or regulate my guns . I rely on common sense and my Rights that are guaranteed in the USA Constitution and its Bill of Rights .


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Fuck no it shouldn't be.   Just because someone disagrees with you or is a jerk does not mean they should die.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

I guess these guys are "gun-grabbers" too...


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Indeed they do.  And I have no problem arguing the issue.   But first remember that these forums do not determine gun laws.  And second, the main person you are arguing with won't change their mind, but others reading the thread may not know the truth or the facts.  The latter is who you can win over with an actual argument.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Why anti gun people are so angry....."
> 
> There is no such thing as 'anti-gun people,' consequently no one is 'angry.'
> 
> ...



Bull.  Lies.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



More lies and anti rights rhetoric.  That's why nobody likes you.  Traitor to the American people is all you are.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.


A guy selling a gun isn't a loophole. You never stated how many gun show buys are used in crimes for obvious reasons and no one is suggesting owning any weapon they want.

Fail.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn'  and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> look at this article about the coming OPEN CARRY in Texas .  Me , I just laugh but these anti gunners are little kids and they want restrictions or total disarming , see what you guys think .    ---   Texas gun bills taking us back to Old West days The Star Telegram The Star Telegram  ---   uh , you might like it Brian !!


Nonsense.

Again, there is no such thing as 'anti-gunners,' whatever that's supposed to be.

And no one is seeking to 'disarm' anyone or enact regulatory measures contrary to current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Moreover, one person's opinion on a website is not representative of those who support reasonable, Constitutional firearms regulatory policy, where opposing an open carry law is not to advocate 'violating' the Second Amendment or 'infringing' on anyone's rights.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

They insult our intelligence by pretending they are not anti-rights.  These are the same people who spew hatred for the police, but yet only want police to be armed.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.
> ...



   People like BFGRN think a semi auto AR-15 belongs only on the battle field...because it's scary looking.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > look at this article about the coming OPEN CARRY in Texas .  Me , I just laugh but these anti gunners are little kids and they want restrictions or total disarming , see what you guys think .    ---   Texas gun bills taking us back to Old West days The Star Telegram The Star Telegram  ---   uh , you might like it Brian !!
> ...



Yes it is.  It is an infringement upon our rights.  Too bad if you're afraid and don't trust your fellow Americans.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.
> ...



"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

Every gun sale should require a background check IMO. But what the gun show loophole allows is dealers who POSE as 'private' sellers to set up a booth at gun shows and sell weapons without a background check. If the 'private' seller suspects the buyer is a criminal, he is supposed to terminate the sale. Undercover buyers/investigators with hidden cameras went to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




This is part of the problem gun grabbers are facing.  Women are the number one driving force behind gun control...conversely,  the number one fastest growing segment of gun owners are women.

LAS VEGAS — The gun world is not just a man’s world anymore.

Women are buying more guns, hunting and participating in the shooting sports more than ever, according to a study released Wednesday by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“We’re changing the industry,” said Lucretia Free, publisher of The American Woman Shooter.

In 2001, there were 1.8 million female hunters in the country. In 2013, there were 3.3 million female hunters, an 85 percent increase in the dozen years, according to the study released last week at the shooting sports organization’s annual SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoors Trade) Show in Las Vegas.

In 2001, there were 3.3 million female target shooters in the country. In 2013, that number had grown to 5.4 million, or increased by 60 percent.

And those numbers don’t include the number of women who own a gun only for protection, which is why most women initially buy a gun.

Study More Women Buying Guns Participating In Shooting Sports Times Record​What is driving this growth?  At least in part the success of the conceal carry movement.

The gun control groups staked their reputations on a lie...that conceal carry would lead to a new "Wild West" where law abiding citizens would be filling the streets with lead! Oh my!

Not only did that narrative prove false,  but just the opposite occurred,  crime dropped,  and responsible citizens (gasp) carried concealed weapons responsibly. 

Today,  women are asking "why am I not doing that?  I am responsible.  Why am I leaving myself at a disadvantage?"

And in response,  they are not...they are learning about,  and buying firearms in droves.

My wife owns her own guns,  with far different designated purposes than my own.  Where my guns are almost exclusively of the hunting variety,  hers are exclusively for the purpose of self defense. 

She and her girlfriends have a girls range day once a week.  At first there were four...now there are ten.

I keep trying to steal away her Maverick 8-shot Model 88 Security 12 gauge,  but so far I have not been successful.  

P.S. - Brain and I actually get along pretty well,  considering we are on opposite sides of this issue.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with looks. It has to do with rate of fire, magazine capacity and the carnage it can inflict in a school, movie theater or any public place where citizens peacefully gather.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.

Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Yeah...but what if they are a really big jerk?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



It is called "incremental" gun banning, meaning you take it in individual steps.  You are NOT fooling anyone.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Another thing . . . voting is quite a responsibility.  How about we put some restrictions on who can vote.  How would you feel about that.  It's no different.  Voting is a right, as is the 2nd amendment.  

When you give the government permission to mess with any one of our rights, then what is to stop them from messing with others?  Nothing because you have set a precedent.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some actual research........where do actual convicts get their guns....
> ...




Yeah, Yeah....asked and answered about John Lott.....and that is why he is still one of the most respected researchers in the field....and using the law center...really....they don't tell the truth....and actual research, shows that they are lying....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



  We all know that so called assault rifles are very rarely used in mass killings.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



*Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots*





*Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville, Fla., received a 20-years prison sentence, Friday, May 11, 2012, for firing warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband. The judge rejected a defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. WETV *


(CBS News) JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Those instances are EXTREMELY rare, less than 1% of all murders.  Why aren't you concerned about the black on black crime in the inner cities?  That is responsible for more deaths than honest gun owners fool.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

good news Missorian , thanks for the woman update !!    I also encourage people that are new to the USA to take advantage of the 2nd Amendment and the 1 guy that I'm thinking of that I encouraged couldn't believe that he could go to a gun store and just buy an AR15 .   I also encourage kids and relatives that I don't see very often .


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



What is your point in posting this?  You think this woman doesn't have a right to defend herself against abuse?  Do you know how many women are killed by their abusive husbands every year?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > good catch 'herewego' I didn't notice that Bfgrn was posting some anti gun sites stats .
> ...




Which guy are you talking about........and which anti-gun nut site made up that allegation...as they accept money from former mayor bloomberg or george soros.......or like the violence policy center just refuse to say who funds them....


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



John Lott is a lying scum bag paid for by gun manufacturers. Just HOW stupid are you folks?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Well, if these anti gunners were so concerned about people and death, they would want to ban swimming and vehicles, which are NOT necessities nor rights, and kill many more people every year.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You do realize that handguns and shotguns are also military weapons.......and at some point, that fact will be used to designate them "Battlefield" weapons that no civilian should possess...right?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



And what about Dr. Kleck?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




He doesn't accept funding from gun manufacturers.......that is an anti-gun nut lie...as they accept all of their funding from rabid anti gunners like soros and bloomberg...who both use heavily armed body guards.....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

It's quite obvious that they have an agenda to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.  They do NOT care about the deaths.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And every 1960s radical was trained reading Camus.....and then went on to bomb buildings and kill bank guards....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 21, 2015)

MISSOURIAN SAID:

“This is part of the problem gun grabbers are facing.”

There is no such thing as a 'gun-grabber,' the notion is ridiculous and unfounded, the contrivance of demagogues.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Here is another "gun grabber"






Adolphus Busch IV is trying to tell you something. Something that only an insider can provide. Only someone who KNOWS what the NRA is REALLY all about.

But the parrots will disregard this information and continue to believe the NRA cares about the American people.

*Budweiser heir Adolphus Busch IV resigns NRA membership *



ST. LOUIS (KSDK) - One day after the U.S. Senate rejected a bill that would have expanded background checks on guns, one of St. Louis' most powerful and staunch supporters of gun rights ended his lifetime membership with the National Rifle Association (NRA). 

"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch, who also dropped his NRA membership.* "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."*

*Busch joined the pro-gun organization in 1975* and has spoken before of his love of hunting. But the NRA has moved in a direction that Busch would not follow. *"One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners,"* he wrote.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


This fails as a false comparison fallacy.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Yes...that fake under cover sting.....all of those "Sellers" were private citizens not registered firearm dealers.....and nothing you try to implement is going to stop them if the are willing to sell a gun to someone who outright tells them "I can't pass a background check,"   IF they sell to that person they don't care about the law...any law that you want passed.....and you can't stop them with background checks.......


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

LEGAL gun owners are not the ones out there committing most of the murders.  Does it happen occasionally?  Of course!  But notice that these people will ignore the biggest problem in our society which is NOT honest and legal gun owners, but inner city black on black crime.  This is why our homicide rates are SO high.  We have a GANG problem and a CRIME problem.  This only bolsters the fact that honest citizens need guns for protection, since no one seems to be willing to acknowledge or do anything about the gang and crime problem that exists in our inner cities.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



How so?  Don't just make stupid statements.  Explain yourself.  What I stated is absolutely true.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Here is another "gun grabber"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And I am sure that if his family is ever in trouble.....he will have no problem getting a gun that he needs...and is protected by the NRA.....too much money...too little sense.....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MISSOURIAN SAID:
> 
> “This is part of the problem gun grabbers are facing.”
> 
> There is no such thing as a 'gun-grabber,' the notion is ridiculous and unfounded, the contrivance of demagogues.



Yes there is.  You are denying that people would not like to see the American public disarmed?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Criminals and gangs are going to get weapons regardless of your laws.  The only people that laws restrict are the people who already follow the laws.  

This is WHY we call those people CRIMINALS.  Because they don't obey LAWS.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

a little video for Bfrgn , well mostly to prove a statement that he made to be wrong .   ---    ---


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> a little video for Bfrgn , well mostly to prove a statement that he made to be wrong .   ---    ---



   Kinda puts kibosh on all those liberals claiming no one wants to take your guns.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.
> 
> Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.



Herein lies your problem.  We don't trust you.  (Not you personally mind you)

No politician has proposed an outright ban YET...mostly because it is a political loser.

I'll challenge you.  Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

*I guess America is infested with "gun grabbers"...*


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.
> ...



President Obama proposed reasonable changes to gun laws. Reasonable people accept reasonable. Un- reasonable people don't.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


I'm not buying it. If you are making a business of selling guns and not reporting the income the IRS is going to be all over it. I can sell a gun to my neighbor, it isn't the government's business. I have no way of doing a check or knowing who would pass a check for whatever reasons and likely those gun sellers didn't either.

I could sell a car to a habitual drunk and he could kill someone too.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn'  and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!



The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




For a second time,  I'll challenge you.  Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> John Lott is a lying scum bag paid for by gun manufacturers.


Prove it.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



WHAT don't you understand about...
*Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" *-- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Mar 21, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> ...



*Nice sounding analogy but most adults need a car but hardly anyone really needs a gun.  And for the irrational and lazy, guns are too easy an out for solving a temporary problem.   *


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn'  and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!
> ...


Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Read my post again before re-puking your opinion.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> *I guess America is infested with "gun grabbers"...*




See......as was pointed out above...we don't trust you...why...because we know how you think and what you want....

Those polls showing people in favor of "universal background checks" are based on lies.....they ask the question.. do you support universal background checks for transfers of guns.....and of course, people who pay no attention to the issue in their daily lives, who just hear about the issue from democrats in the media, and who never ask for clarification of the issue....say yes.....

Now....ask the real question...

"Do you support universal background checks if it means you can't give a family member a gun as a gift, even if you know they are not a felon, without paying a gun store a fee to do a background check......do you support UBCs if it means that if both you and your wife have concealed carry permits...and you buy a gun....you cannot lend that gun to your wife, or let her carry that gun without going to a licensed firearm dealer and doing a background check on her.....do you support background checks if it means that if your freind, who is not a felon, is going hunting and would like to try out your new shotgun...that you have to get a background check and pay for it to lend him that shotgun"

Ask that question again....and see what the real poll number is......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




When obama and John Lott were at the University of chicago, obama told Lott that people should not have guns.....obama is a gun grabber...


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Sorry, I don't subscribe to your criteria...

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Yes....how long does a rape have to take for it to be a temporary problem?  Or a beating, or a stabbing, or a murder......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Wrong...there is every need.....we may very well need them to stop the government.....so we also need 30 round magazines to go with those rifles.....

And if the military and police have them, then the people who pay their salaries get them as well.....

An AR-15 is a good weapon for personal self defense....large magazine capacity, can hold a light and a lazer, because of the gun grabbers it now has a killer reputation so is intimidating to criminals, and the light round does not penetrate dry wall...which means you will be less likely to hit a neighbor if you are defending yourself....and a rifle has more stopping power than a pistol......

So yes...civilians need them...


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Rashad is just a poor, misunderstood, disrespected black man acting out his justifiable black rage.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




So,  you do want an outright ban,  got it.

How exactly would that have averted Newtown?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > *I guess America is infested with "gun grabbers"...*
> ...



Then you gun owners are stupid people too...

*92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks *


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Yes, I am for reasonable gun control laws, are you?


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

see , see what I mean , Bfgrn OR Brian , really makes no difference and their words and thinking is good to see for all to see !!    Just like 'Feinstein' she can have a gun but the rabble have no Right .  Same thinking by mrobama !!


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

Another thread on non-existent "gun grabbers'. It is always fun to watch paranoids on parade....


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Of course it has to do with looks.   I own a Springfield M1A.  By the definition used in Clintion's "assault weapon" ban, it does not qualify as an "assault rifle", despite the fact that it (especially in the shorter formats) is a far better battle rifle than the ARs.

The assault rifle ban used the following criteria:
"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and *two or more* of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount"
Of the 5 criteria, only one has any actual bearing on the operation of the rifle in a criminal manner, and that is the folding or collapsible stock.  This makes the rifle more concealable.  The pistol grip is purely cosmetic.  The bayonet mount is purely cosmetic (unless you know of any crimes in which a mounted bayonet was used).  The flash suppressor is purely cosmetic.   And the grenade launcher is not only purely cosmetic, the ability to buy grenades for such a launcher is so strictly regulated as to be unavailable except thru the black market.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



*I'm not sure what your logic is, if there is any, but most shootings are by assailants rather than would-be victims.*

*2015*
*GUN VIOLENCE ARCHIVE 2015 TOLL OF GUN VIOLENCE*

Total Number of Incidents: 9,226
Number of Deaths1: 2,575
Number of Injuries1: 4,373
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 120
Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured1: 448
Mass Shooting2: 52
Officer Involved Shooting2: 908
Home Invasion2: 452
*Defensive Use2: 258*
Accidental Shooting2: 441
Gun Violence Archive


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Another thread on non-existent "gun grabbers'. It is always fun to watch paranoids on parade....



*Yeah~! Who are these gun-grabbers?  No YouTube video, photos, news items, facts, data....?  Nada, zero, zip.*


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Damn those grenade grabbers!!!!!!!!


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Another thread on non-existent "gun grabbers'. It is always fun to watch paranoids on parade....




Uh...



Bfgrn said:


> There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!


Oops,  so much for non-existent.  Sorry,  please try again.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




Diane Feinstein does:

_“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”_ – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

_“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.”_ – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

_“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”_



_Joe Biden does:_

_“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993



Sarah Brady does:

“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – The National Educator, January 1994, pg. 3, to Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum
_


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > How exactly would that have averted Newtown?
> ...



Still waiting...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

BFGRN,

Shame on you! Return every single gun that you have grabbed, this very minute! And tell Joe, Sarah, and Diane to do the same!


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Unless they are threatening you, nope.  Sorry.   No open season on jerks.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> a little video for Bfrgn , well mostly to prove a statement that he made to be wrong .   ---    ---



You are not really going to use that strawman argument are you? If Feinstein needed "51 votes" then there must have been a "vote" to ban ALL guns...right?

Is THAT what you are trying to portray...???


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 21, 2015)

Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.

It could be decades before a comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment right is codified in case law, likely requiring the Supreme Court to weight in with regard to a number of regulatory measures.

Until that time, however, firearm regulatory policy that has been ruled Constitutional by the Federal courts, such as magazine capacity requirements and licensing fees, as well as measures not yet subject to judicial review, do not 'violate' the Second Amendment, nor do they seek to 'infringe' on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

To argue otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



  Got a feeling you'll be waiting a long time.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Nothing can stop Newtown. Those children and teachers are dead.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Man,  gun grabbers really hate the term gun grabber.

How about Hoplophobics instead?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




    Man thats weak..


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Again...how exactly *would that have averted* Newtown?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

I find it funny this is about angry anti gunners and the person ranting and name calling and hating is the pro gun nut.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

I am afraid that I will have to retract my statement. There are gun grabbers. My brother, at a age 16 was playing Matt Dillan in the woods, practicing his fast draw. He grabbed his 22 colt, and shot himself in the leg. I almost forgot about that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> I am afraid that I will have to retract my statement. There are gun grabbers. My brother, at a age 16 was playing Matt Dillan in the woods, practicing his fast draw. He grabbed his 22 colt, and shot himself in the leg. I almost forgot about that.



 Your brother sounds like a real genius.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.
> 
> It could be decades before a comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment right is codified in case law, likely requiring the Supreme Court to weight in with regard to a number of regulatory measures.
> 
> ...



Just as Justice Scalia stated in Heller...

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. 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.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> I find it funny this is about angry anti gunners and the person ranting and name calling and hating is the pro gun nut.




Hey Brain.  Good to see ya.

Ready for another head to head?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I am afraid that I will have to retract my statement. There are gun grabbers. My brother, at a age 16 was playing Matt Dillan in the woods, practicing his fast draw. He grabbed his 22 colt, and shot himself in the leg. I almost forgot about that.
> ...



Oh, he is! Now he is a rabid supporter of the NRA! He hasn't shot himself in the leg since! I do feel a little sorry for the squirrels in his neck of the woods, though. There are none, anymore.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



 At least he sounds capable of learning..


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

I think it is clear there is angry and crazy ones on both sides.  Winterborn, 2A, and Missourian and others are always good gentlemen in discussions.  Others like ChrisL go right to name calling and other childish garbage.  She really makes gun owners look bad while I think the others show everyone isn't a gun nut.

On there other side at the extreme there is that guy who is happy when a gun owner is killed and thinks they all should be.  Clearly a nut.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



I asked him about it once. He told me that it is always squirrel season in Texas.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it funny this is about angry anti gunners and the person ranting and name calling and hating is the pro gun nut.
> ...



Oh I'm always ready.  Haven't seen much of you though.  You avoiding this? 

The thing I'm mostly getting yelled at lately is if colleges should be forced to allow firearms.  My feeling is it should be up to the college just like it is up to the student to pick a college.  I don't like the idea of the government forcing it upon them.  For this I have been called a lot of names.  haha


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


 
    So your brothers a squirrel?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



No, squirrels are unarmed. My brother is always armed. In fact, he stopped flying because of that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



 Someone should tell him there are ways to fly and still bring your firearm.
Firearms and Ammunition Transportation Security Administration


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



Another lie.  All you people can do is lie.  Dr. Kleck started off being anti-gun until he realized he was wrong.  A reasonable and honest person, he changed his perspectives based upon the FACTS.  

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.
> 
> It could be decades before a comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment right is codified in case law, likely requiring the Supreme Court to weight in with regard to a number of regulatory measures.
> 
> ...



And what good do regulations and laws do against criminals who most of the time obtain their guns through illegal means?


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

Private school might be able to ban just so public universities can't ban then its ok with me .


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> I think it is clear there is angry and crazy ones on both sides.  Winterborn, 2A, and Missourian and others are always good gentlemen in discussions.  Others like ChrisL go right to name calling and other childish garbage.  She really makes gun owners look bad while I think the others show everyone isn't a gun nut.
> 
> On there other side at the extreme there is that guy who is happy when a gun owner is killed and thinks they all should be.  Clearly a nut.



That is because you are a dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Lies.  You are on every gun thread spewing your anti-gun rhetoric.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> I think it is clear there is angry and crazy ones on both sides.  Winterborn, 2A, and Missourian and others are always good gentlemen in discussions.  Others like ChrisL go right to name calling and other childish garbage.  She really makes gun owners look bad while I think the others show everyone isn't a gun nut.
> 
> On there other side at the extreme there is that guy who is happy when a gun owner is killed and thinks they all should be.  Clearly a nut.



^^^^

This is a person who claims that men are not stronger than women and makes fun of women who feel they need protection.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Took a hiatus,  there was too much animosity flowing around here.  Seems to be a little better now.

Are you upset that in some states,  like mine,  colleges are forced by law to restrict all firearms from campus...it was the gun control advocates that lobbied for these laws,  but when the force is being applied by the other foot (so to speak) that is a travesty.

For private colleges and universities,  I agree with you.

Public colleges should not be exempted from Constitutional rights.  (P.S. - free speech zones should be abolished as well.)


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is clear there is angry and crazy ones on both sides.  Winterborn, 2A, and Missourian and others are always good gentlemen in discussions.  Others like ChrisL go right to name calling and other childish garbage.  She really makes gun owners look bad while I think the others show everyone isn't a gun nut.
> ...



I have said women are not defenseless without a gun.  Don't bother lying anyone can go and look at what I have said.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> Private school might be able to ban just so public universities can't ban then its ok with me .



That is an interesting thought.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I think it should be up to the college.  So laws shouldn't force them to allow or not allow.  I think that is fair.  And if somebody is really worried about guns they go to a school that has none.  If they think they need one for protection they go to one that allows them.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Just to prove what a dishonest piece of crap this rapey weirdo is . . . .
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
↑
Brain:  Are you saying all men are twice your size? Awe poor defenseless little you. I guess you are just defenseless without a gun. You insult women.

Me:  At 5'1" tall and 100 pounds, YES, most men are twice my size. Even if they are my size, men are stronger than women. Those are facts, retard.

Brain:  That doesn't make you defenseless. Gosh get some confidence.

Me: This has nothing to do with "confidence" you piece of shit.

Brain:  Yes it totally does. You think you are defenseless without a gun. That is just pathetic.

Me:  Most women are defenseless against a man if he decides to force himself upon them. That is why so many women are raped and why women are most often the victims of rape.

Brain:  No they are not. Get some confidence.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

sure , they are not defenseless but most male criminals are stronger than females , weak people , disabled people and the elderly Brian .   He11 , fienstein carries or used to carry a gun , mrobama and family always have a bevy of armed bodyguards !!


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

publically funded schools should not be able to ban concealed carry Brian .


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

I liked your comment on 'free speech zones' Missourian !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I always thought you were smarter than that WinterBorn...I was wrong...

False and out of context "quotes" aside...PLEASE provide the bills and legislation PROPOSED...

It is a funny thing, these things we call "laws"...they require more than "quotes"


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

And, of course, we have to use right-wing sources because the liberal media likes to downplay the incremental gun banning of our politicians . . . .

Alert Sen. Diane Feinstein releases gun ban summary for 2013 The Daily Caller

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:



Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 _Assault Weapons Ban_ and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.



Tags: Gun control, handguns


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



It's a Constitutional issue.  Augusta National Golf Club,  as a private entity,  had a choice whether to admit women...no matter how personally unfavorable most folks,  myself included, were to their decision,  it was their right to decide.  A publicly funded golf course would not be allowed that decision,  they would be forced to accept women...which most would argue is a good thing.

The same with firearms.  If a private university makes a decision to restrict firearms,  that is there choice,  but a public institution doesn't get the make that choice...they are forced to accept the law of the land.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

And there's this too.  Notice the part I put in bold at the end.  

In Feinstein s Harvey Milk gun control speech no mention of .38 special she once carried The Daily Caller

Feinstein was referring to Milk’s death in 1978. Then president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, she came upon his dead body after fellow San Francisco pol Dan White killed him and Mayor George Moscone with a .38 special — the same model gun Feinstein herself owned.

“I was the one that found Supervisor Milk’s body, and I was the one to put a finger in a bullet hole, trying to get a pulse,” Feinstein, who served with Milk on the Board of Supervisors and succeeded Moscone as mayor, told reporters in January 2013. “Once you have been through one of these episodes, once you see what the crime scene is like, it isn’t like the movies — it changes your view of weapons.”

Feinstein mentioned the shooting in 2008 during an emotional on-camera interview with the San Francicso Chronicle.


“I remember it, actually, as if it was yesterday,” she said then. “And it was one of the hardest moments, if not the hardest moment, of my life. It was a devastating moment. For San Francisco, it was a day of infamy.”

Despite her emotional reaction to Milk’s murder — press reports in 1978 said Feinstein was so shaken she needed police support — she did not turn in her own gun until four years later.

William Strawn, a spokesman for Feinstein when she was mayor, told The Washington Post in 1982 that she planned to hand over her Smith & Wesson .38 caliber Chief’s Special to police. Strawn said she had purchased the gun while serving as a city-county supervisor in the 1970s, after a local terrorist group shot out some windows of her home.

Feinstein eventually gave up her gun in July 1982, more than four years after the assassinations of Milk and Moscone.

Milk’s shooting “crystallized the issue for me,” Feinstein told Newsweek four months before she parted with her firearm.

*“Even Feinstein concedes that patchwork gun-control legislation is ‘not a perfect vehicle,’ Newsweek reported. “What’s needed, she says, is a federal ban.”*


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

I think that Winterborn is just pointing out the thinking of 'ilk' like fienstein and other politicians Bfgrn .  Fienstien , boxer and other taxpayer paid public servants would restrict , disarm , regulate all they can when they can .   I suspect that you and Brian are the same ilk !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> sure , they are not defenseless but most male criminals are stronger than females , weak people , disabled people and the elderly Brian .   He11 , fienstein carries or used to carry a gun , mrobama and family always have a bevy of armed bodyguards !!



When a man who is twice your size and strength is intent upon raping you, there is nothing you can do to stop him, short of mortally injuring him with a firearm.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> *I'll challenge you.  Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.*




Bfgrn said:


> There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!




Missourian said:


> Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?



Still waiting...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Well..what fun is that then....?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




What about a limited season....like in the fall....?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > sure , they are not defenseless but most male criminals are stronger than females , weak people , disabled people and the elderly Brian .   He11 , fienstein carries or used to carry a gun , mrobama and family always have a bevy of armed bodyguards !!
> ...



You can consider yourself defenseless all you want.  You don't speak for all women however. My wife for instance is far from defenseless.  Haha


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> publically funded schools should not be able to ban concealed carry Brian .



It's "BRAIN" and not "Brian" if you can believe that bullshit.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



What is this?  Some kind of a joke to you?  I suppose ALL of those women who have been raped just allowed it to happen then, huh brainless.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Stupid, no....many gun owners don't pay attention to the goals of you gun grabbers....they think you really mean what you say when you say..."We just want  common sense gun control"  and they believe you because they don't know you.....

I know hunters who don't care about handguns so they don't care if they get banned.....they think...I have a shotgun and they won't ban those.....and they just don't realize that they want all guns, not just some guns?..

Again...ask the question with all of the implications of that law...and see if they still support it.......


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Nobody is forcing anyone to carry on campus.  It would be an OPTION, brainless.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



No a lot of them were drugged or drunk.  Many are not yet adults.  Many are taken advantage of by someone they know.  But no all women are not defenseless.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Plenty of violent stranger rapes happen.  You are WRONG.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Obviously.  I'm saying if the school doesn't want to allow firearms they should have that right.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



How many?  55% involve drugs.  80% an acquaintance.  60% minors.  That doesn't leave many.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

Violent victimizations committed by strangers accounted for about 38% of all nonfatal violence in 2010


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



If you are going to quote statistics, then provide a link.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

You see?  You see why I call brainless names now?  Do you see how dishonest and what a piece of shit he is?  He has EARNED it and deserves it.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

yeah right Brian , if a PRIVATE school doesn't want guns then that's cool .  Publically funded is a different story though !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Nope, ANOTHER lie.  You were saying that people would be FORCED to carry firearms because you are a dishonest piece of crap.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 21, 2015)

Why are anti gun folks angry?  Pro gun idiots want it all!  No back ground checks, no MANDATORY safety courses, no liability laws against those morons who have unsecured guns around children, no waiting period to buy even MORE guns.

And a warped rationalization that dead kids are gonna happen, so why not get some more guns.

School yards, restaurants, churches, college campuses, offices and theaters are shot up by gun nuts and then those gun nuts claim it's their 'right' to put MORE guns on the streets.

That 2nd amendment has a phrase the gun nuts NEVER quote.  "A well regulated militia..." .  There are guns folks have had and should have.  Hunting and target rifles, shot guns.  But a weapon designed for war, a weapon that has a semi-automatic or fully automatic firing system, has a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds.  Such weapons are designed for the battle field, not the hunting grounds and certainly not on the streets.

But gun nuts throw shallow logic at the situation and continue to try to hide behind the second phase of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




unless it is a public supported college...then they have no right to deny our right to self defense........


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

Tell these women they are defenseless.
Successful self-defense by women


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Why are anti gun folks angry?  Pro gun idiots want it all!  No back ground checks, no MANDATORY safety courses, no liability laws against those morons who have unsecured guns around children, no waiting period to buy even MORE guns.
> 
> And a warped rationalization that dead kids are gonna happen, so why not get some more guns.
> 
> ...



Guns PROTECT us from the criminals that would harm us.  Dead kids happen in GUN FREE zones.  Guns have been proven to be the most effective deterrent against criminals.  Don't believe me?  Ask them.  

Gun Facts Gun Control and Crime

*Fact: *60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 7


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Well..since most states require you to be 21 to own and carry a gun....they would all be adults.....and at 17, they can carry a rifle and pistol in a combat zone for their country...but they can't carry a gun to stop a rape......really?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Tell these women they are defenseless.
> Successful self-defense by women



MOST men can overpower a woman quite easily, brainless.  That is a fact.  Men are 50% stronger in brute strength.  What do you think happens to a woman when she gets punched in the face by a man?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Well, I just hope all of the intelligent people here can see Brainless dishonesty in action.  THAT is why I hate him.  He wants women to be defenseless against the men who would prey upon them.  

If women were NOT defenseless, as he claims, then there would be very FEW rapes.  He is a lying sack of crap.  That is all.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



No they can carry a gun if they choose obviously.  But very few rapes are defendable with a gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Tell these women they are defenseless.
> Successful self-defense by women




So...some manage it many, many others do not.....I will side with giving them the option.....you guys want them to use the least effective method to save their lives...having trained in the arts my whole life and taught them....guns are simply the most effective way to defend yourself....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell these women they are defenseless.
> ...



Those women laugh at you.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Well, I just hope all of the intelligent people here can see Brainless dishonesty in action.  THAT is why I hate him.  He wants women to be defenseless against the men who would prey upon them.
> 
> If women were NOT defenseless, as he claims, then there would be very FEW rapes.  He is a lying sack of crap.  That is all.



My link proved women are not defenseless.  Stop insulting women.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

didn't look at the link Brian but I Guess that its a link to classes or ways that a woman can fight an attacker with out a gun .  Finally looked and YEAH , its a silly link Brian , it tells success stories of women getting their hands dirty and physically fighting an attacker .  Best to be aware and properly armed and there will be no wrestling an attacker on the ground !!       PS , your arguments sound like the arguments of a English subject Brian !!


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell these women they are defenseless.
> ...



They have the option.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Why are anti gun folks angry?  Pro gun idiots want it all!  No back ground checks, no MANDATORY safety courses, no liability laws against those morons who have unsecured guns around children, no waiting period to buy even MORE guns.
> 
> And a warped rationalization that dead kids are gonna happen, so why not get some more guns.
> 
> ...



You'll have to take that up with the Supreme Court. They ruled on whose interpretation was correct not to long ago.  Spoiler alert...your side lost.

You want to get in on this one...the last challengee abandoned the field of battle.



Missourian said:


> I'll challenge you.  Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



That is not true.  According to statistics, 200,000 women have used guns to defend themselves from rape, and some didn't even have to fire a shot, just brandishing the weapon was enough to scare off the perpetrator.  More dishonesty from the brainless.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> didn't look at the link Brian but I Guess that its a link to classes or ways that a woman can fight an attacker with out a gun .  Finally looked and YEAH , its a silly link Brian , it tells success stories of women getting their hands dirty and physically fighting an attacker .  Best to be aware and properly armed and there will be no wrestling an attacker on the ground !!       PS , your arguments sound like the arguments of a English subject Brian !!



It was to show women are not defenseless.  I think it shows that quite clearly.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I just hope all of the intelligent people here can see Brainless dishonesty in action.  THAT is why I hate him.  He wants women to be defenseless against the men who would prey upon them.
> ...



You link proves nothing except that some women got lucky.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > didn't look at the link Brian but I Guess that its a link to classes or ways that a woman can fight an attacker with out a gun .  Finally looked and YEAH , its a silly link Brian , it tells success stories of women getting their hands dirty and physically fighting an attacker .  Best to be aware and properly armed and there will be no wrestling an attacker on the ground !!       PS , your arguments sound like the arguments of a English subject Brian !!
> ...



No, most women would not be able to physically overpower a male.  THAT is a fact.  Especially if they are petite women like myself.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Not statistics, a bad survey.  Statics show there are about 80,000 rapes a year.  Most of which aren't defendable with a gun.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



Many have the ability to get away from a rape. And it is a fact women are not defenseless without a gun.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



80,000 rapes per year.  Those 200,000 women would not be included in those stats because they were NOT raped.  More lies from you.  Thank you for proving to everyone what a lying sack of shit you are.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Liar.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



  I think spring would be a better choice. Unlike deer,Jerks become more active in the spring affording more chances of a trophy Jerk.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Why are anti gun folks angry?  Pro gun idiots want it all!  No back ground checks, no MANDATORY safety courses, no liability laws against those morons who have unsecured guns around children, no waiting period to buy even MORE guns.
> 
> And a warped rationalization that dead kids are gonna happen, so why not get some more guns.
> 
> ...




You do realize that fully automatic weapons are not generally available,or easy to acquire.....right? 

You anti-gun nuts...do some research...it would make you less,afraid....


and 100 children is tragic...but there are over 320 million people in this country.....and more children die each year because of furniture than guns.....in pools than guns.......and yet those deaths aren't important to you....but that phobia...it grabs all of your attention.......and destroys your ability to think rationally...

and if the military has a rifle, then the people who pay for that rifle get to own one as well........we own the government...it doesn't own us....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Yes and maybe 25% of women own guns.  So gun owning women who are a minority defended 200k, while the majority of women had 80k?  That is obviously ridiculous.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

I wonder why Brainless wants women to be defenseless?  I've asked him several times, and the only response I get is that "women are not defenseless without a gun against a man that is twice her size."  

Now, he keeps making the bogus claim that the majority of women can physically fight off a male attacker.  

Everyone knows that if a man is persistent and punches that woman in the face, she is going down with broken facial bones.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



No, those are legitimate statistics taken from legitimate studies.  One being the Kleck study.  You have provided nothing at all to negate these statistics other than statistics on women who WERE raped.  You're a foolish dickhead.  I hope you get raped someday and then you would know how it feels, loser.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Those are rapes that succeed...guns stop them from succeeding and save other women from being raped....so if a rape is stopped, it doesn't get counted......


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Kleck is a survey.  They are not statistics.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



So 25% of women defend 200k rapes and 75% of women are victims to 80k rapes?  Are guns an attempted rape magnet?  That would be the only explanation and I'm not buying it.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

excellent points '2aguy' , thing is that many of these anti gunner , anti Rights people have the same mentality as the subjects in England .


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Yes, there are statistics.  Where do you think statistics come from?  Man, oh man, you are a complete and utter moron.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Where are you getting these statistics?  Post a link.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

I mean I had a free country to grow up in , these gun control , anti freedom guys , dems , libs are creating a he11 for their children, or just the generic youngsters in the country !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

According to stats by RAINN, there are more than 250,000 SUCCESSFUL sexual assaults on women, not 80,000.  

*Sexual Assault Numbers*

Every 107 seconds, another American is sexually assaulted
There is an average of 293,000 victims (age 12 or older) of sexual assault each year


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> According to stats by RAINN, there are more than 250,000 SUCCESSFUL sexual assaults on women, not 80,000.
> 
> *Sexual Assault Numbers*
> 
> ...



80,000
United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013

But let's pretend there are 293,000.  If that is the case then 25% of women are defending 200k and unarmed women only 93k.  Why are armed women attracting so many more assaults?  According to that having a gun makes you much more likely to be assaulted.  Clearly that isn't true.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > According to stats by RAINN, there are more than 250,000 SUCCESSFUL sexual assaults on women, not 80,000.
> ...



There are some stats in your link that bring the levels of violent forcible rape to over 100,000.  Again, lies.  

How do you figure that 200,000 women defending themselves with weapons attracts rapists.  That is a bogus claim.  

Explain how having a gun would make a woman MORE likely to be attacked?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > According to stats by RAINN, there are more than 250,000 SUCCESSFUL sexual assaults on women, not 80,000.
> ...



Everyone better take note of this idiot's dishonesty.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I'm clearly claiming it doesn't.   But it would have to in order to believe the 200k.  This is why 200k is obviously wrong.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



No, it isn't wrong, and you have posted nothing to prove that it is.  

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.  There was no statistical difference between the percentage decline for violence by strangers (81%) and by offenders known to the victims (73%) from 1993 to 2010.  In 2005-10, more than half (52%) of all robberies were committed by strangers, down from nearly two-thirds (64%) in 1993-98.  In 2005-10, strangers committed 62% of violent victimizations occurring in public places.  In 2005-10, about 9% of violent victimizations that occurred in victims’ homes were committed by strangers.  In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.  In 2005-10, about 22% of victims of violence committed by strangers were injured, compared to 31% of victims who knew the offender.  In 2010, more than half (55%) of violent victimizations by strangers were reported to police, although the percentage fluctuated from 1993 to 2010.  From 2005 to 2008, about 43% of homicides known to have been committed by a stranger occurred during a robbery or argument.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



No, it doesn't mean what you are claiming it means.  That is your own "addition."  No statistics say that women who are armed are MORE likely to be assaulted.  Liar.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Sorry but math shows it to be ridiculous.  25% of women can't defend 200k when 75% are victims of 80k.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



The 200,000 women would NOT be included in the raped category because they were NOT raped.  They defended against rape with the use of a firearm.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Why would armed women who represent 25% of population defend 200k, while unarmed women who are defenseless as you say and 75% of population fall victim to only 80k?  If they are assaulted at the same rate the unarmed must be defending 500k.  Not so defenseless I guess.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



What in the hell are you talking about?  The 200,000 women WERE NOT ASSAULTED.  They used their weapons to prevent assault.  Dumbass.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Somebody, shoot this guy.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



So they prevented an assault that didn't happen? Well yes the 200k is not an accurate number for obvious reasons.


----------



## westwall (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...







Ummm.  Nope.  Not really.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Somebody, shoot this guy.



Not worth the prison time....and losing a concealed carry permit.......



Oh...and it would be wrong......or something.....


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.
> ...



Well, not to put to fine a point on it, ChrisL, but how can a person get firearms through illegal means unless there are laws against them getting guns?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I fully support that bill. It is reasonable and it's sloe purpose is to protect We, the People.

You can stuff the 'slippery slope' crap...


----------



## toxicmedia (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> 
> Here s Why Gun Grabbers Are So Nasty - The Truth About Guns
> 
> ...


You people have lost yo' damn minds.

Liberals are the racists.

Gun control people are the angry ones

Atheism is a "faith"

what next?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




Because unlike your portrayel, gun owners support actual common sense gun laws....not the "common sense" gun laws that deny law abiding citizens access to guns....we support gun laws that allow criminals who use guns for criminal purposes to be locked up........you guys focus only on law abiding citizens since those are the only people background checks and magazine limits and gun registration effect.......

It is against the law for a felon to own or carry a gun....when you catch them with a gun.....lock them up for a long time...

that is real gun control.....what you guys want is Tom Cruise "pre-crime" where you prevent a crime before it happens.....but that only works in that movie....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> "Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.




That is what you say...so your gun on your hip is now an illegal gun if you are in the same room as your child.....nice try...we know how you think and how your unintended consequences are not unintended at all....

How do you enforce that......searching a home....right?   And it is already negligent homicide....just like when a parent leaves a cleaning product in reach of a child, or medicine, or matches, or a full bathtub.............all of those should be illegal as well  right?  With the same consequences...right?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > *I'll challenge you.  Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.*
> ...



Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




Actually, that isn't true...we are well down on that list...I think we are #90 or 111......and lanza could have done the same thing with several revolvers....


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > "Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.
> ...



...and this, gentlepersons, is how we separate the NUTS from the responsible gun owners!

And add to that the same poster's complaint that background checks take away the rights of responsible gun owners, and we have a 2 scoop sunday with nuts!


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Mar 21, 2015)

"
*Why anti gun people are so angry.....""*

*And just for the record, I'm not angry.  I just don't think most people are either mature or responsible enough to own one.  The record number of deaths and accidental shootings in American bears that out.





*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



*But it's OK...Until it  happens in THEIR little, tiny, myopic world where they play Keyboard Kowboys every day.*


----------



## bucs90 (Mar 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Those are interesting charts. 

Can I ask...whats the racial compositions of each of those nations? Id guess the 3/100,000 gun deaths in America each year are largely black on black murders. The white population here is probably just as low as Norway and Sweden and all those other vastly whiter nations.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> I think that Winterborn is just pointing out the thinking of 'ilk' like fienstein and other politicians Bfgrn .  Fienstien , boxer and other taxpayer paid public servants would restrict , disarm , regulate all they can when they can .   I suspect that you and Brian are the same ilk !!



It amazes me just how controlled the right wing mind is by fear. It is the very core of conservatism. The slippery slope argument is ignorant. District of Columbia vs. Heller clearly states:

_Held: _

 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.

Are there 'some' people who want to ban all guns? Of course. But the vast majority of liberals support the right to bear arms to allow citizens to protect themselves, their family and their property. And for sport and hunting.

Common sense laws like universal background checks and a ban of assault weapons is reasonable and prudent to reasonable and prudent citizens...

Unfortunately reasonable and prudent is trumped by the right wing fear filled slippery slope mind.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM'  .   That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER .  New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted .   By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

anyone out there have a list or idea of how many Supreme court cases have been reversed at a later date for whatever reason . I and 'BFgrm' would like to know the answer to my question .


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

amazing to me and I mighta already said it before but the USA , best country in the world and these do gooder restrictionist , regulators , banners want to mess everything up .


----------



## squeeze berry (Mar 21, 2015)

I have never bought a gun when I was not required to pass a background check

WTF are these libs yammering about?


----------



## squeeze berry (Mar 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




  who commits most of the gun crimes in the USA?

those countries do not have the demographics we do

invalid comparison


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




Sorry,  but that is not true.  Cho killed more,  they were adults AND he didn't use a rifle at all.  Lanza had two pistols just like Cho AND many of Lanza's magazines were discarded after only using 15 rounds,

P.S. -  the modern sporting rifle that you mis-attributed as an assault rifle has the same "rate of fire" as every other semi-automatic...one round per trigger pull.




I wish you guys/gals would do you homework,  gain an understanding of firearms,  instead of this knee-jerk reactionary stuff.

And I'm not saying that to be mean.  Take a day at the range and shoot an AR-15,  and a Glock,  and a .38 special.  Find out what it is you are talking about.

Hell,  I'll take you if you live near me.


----------



## squeeze berry (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> "Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.




my problem with your theory is that you can not legislate common sense

ETA:

if I had a toddler/ young child I would have a shelf up high where they can not reach. A semi-pistol with the mag laying beside and on safe. It would only take a few seconds more to insert the mag and rack the slide.

Common sense, right?


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I'm not opposed,  as long as we start by criminalizing all the things are more dangerous to toddlers than guns.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 21, 2015)

Ever had someone threaten  you with a  gun? Even if you are pro  gun,  no matter  how well armed  you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you  in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38  in your bedside  won't help much when  you are roused out of your  that haze of sleep.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

so , whats the solution MaryL. ??


----------



## MaryL (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> so , whats the solution MaryL. ??


Sanity?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

squeeze berry said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > "Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.
> ...



Sure, I can't argue your safety precautions at all. But there are laws for those that don't do as you do, including the head of the fire department in the next community from mine had 12 guns in his house, including one in a holster on his bedpost, where his kid got hold of it, and shot himself by accident...so the father got three years in the slammer, which is common sense, too. Of course the kid lived, or it would have been manslaughter instead of child endangerment.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Yep! As I said, it really isn't difficult to separate the gun nuts from responsible gun owners!

Andf BTW, if you do not have a closed fence around your pool, or if you allow your toddler to wander around inside such fence unsupervised, you can be arrested for child endangerment, abuse, or neglect.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Ever had someone threaten  you with a  gun? Even if you are pro  gun,  no matter  how well armed  you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you  in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38  in your bedside  won't help much when  you are roused out of your  that haze of sleep.




If I can't get to my gun,  then SURELY I can't get to the phone and wait,  and wait,  and wait,  and wait for the police to show up.  Given the alternative,  I'll take my chances with the gun...in fact,  only a fool wouldn't not have a gun,  given your scenario.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Yep! As I said, it really isn't difficult to separate the gun nuts from responsible gun owners!



What it really isn't difficult to do is separate those who can't make a rational argument.  They instead post an attack with zero substance.  Example above.

This is where you put up or shut up.  Why wouldn't criminalizing behaviors that are far MORE dangerous to the children make perfect sense to you.

Leave the pool safety gate open...you go to the penitentiary.

Plastic grocery bag on the floor...10 years to life.

Penny within reach...life in prison.

It's for the children. 

Rebuttal?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM'  .   That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER .  New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted .   By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!



More slippery slope mindset. You fear filled folks just can't help yourself. The majority of liberals support the right to bear arms, many are gun owners themselves...

There will NEVER be a ban on all guns in America...EVER.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment was as common sense as it gets, yet that was defeated by the powerful NRA, gun manufacturer lobby and hatred for our President by Republicans. These legislators put their hatred of Obama ahead of their concern for the safety of our citizens.

*Pat Toomey: Background Checks Died Because GOP Didn't Want To Help Obama*


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




I see you edited your answer.

If you leave a loaded gun laying around where a child can get to it,  you can get the same thing...that's the point.  The same law that covers that covers this.  Bingo bango,  we agree.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 21, 2015)

Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a  firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM.  it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.


----------



## squeeze berry (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


 you want laws to legislate against stupidity?

the jails will be bursting, and you would be an inmate


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a  firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM.  it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.




In other words,  you have no rebuttal.

Got it...thanks for playing,  we have some wonderful parting gifts for you...

...Johnny Olson,  tell her what she's won!!!


----------



## squeeze berry (Mar 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a  firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM.  it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.




they shoot them at the range for kicks

big deal


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 21, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army. 

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 21, 2015)

The other night, I heard this POP POP POP. Next day,I look at my garage, and there is a couple of bullet holes in it. Why? Fuck this stupid shit, somebody could have been killed.  Really?  Who the hell needs guns after this ...stupidity? Don't  debate this...it's rather obvious.


----------



## MaryL (Mar 21, 2015)

Nobody is going to spring  for the damage  they caused, I don't need people shooting off guns period. That is where I am coming from.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> The other night, I heard this POP POP POP. Next day,I look at my garage, and there is a couple of bullet holes in it. Why? Fuck this stupid shit, somebody could have been killed.  Really?  Who the hell needs guns after this ...stupidity? Don't  debate this...it's rather obvious.



And if you heard CRASH CRASH CRASH and the next day you found a strange car sticking through your garage,  would you say "Why? Fuck this stupid shit, somebody could have been killed.  Really?  Who the hell needs CARS after this ...stupidity? Don't  debate this...it's rather obvious."?


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

yeah , good comment Missourian !!   Crash , crash , crash , funny !!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

I will simplify my argument for those that don't get it. There are common sense laws regarding gun possession and ownership, including, the responsibility to keep them out of the hands of unsupervised children. A couple of you are so addicted to "the right to own and carry guns" that you don't even think that THOSE laws are appropriate. I maintain that you are so far beyond the pale of "responsible gun owners" that you have crossed over into the NUT zone. It therefore follows to some of us, that there are plenty of gun nuts who consider ANY gun restriction, whether "common sense", or not, to be wrong, and who are therefor not even worth arguing with. I like to know who they are, so that I don't waste my time even attempting to find common ground with them.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> I will simplify my argument for those that don't get it. There are common sense laws regarding gun possession and ownership, including, the responsibility to keep them out of the hands of unsupervised children. A couple of you are so addicted to "the right to own and carry guns" that you don't even think that THOSE laws are appropriate. I maintain that you are so far beyond the pale of "responsible gun owners" that you have crossed over into the NUT zone. It therefore follows to some of us, that there are plenty of gun nuts who consider ANY gun restriction, whether "common sense", or not, to be wrong, and who are therefor not even worth arguing with. I like to know who they are, so that I don't waste my time even attempting to find common ground with them.




Hell man,  I agreed with you...we don't need new laws because there are ALREADY laws that cover that.

Welcome to your nut list.  At least you're in good company.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




Russia, Mexico.....Brazil........not on that list and more restrictive gun control than the United States and far more gun violence.......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM'  .   That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER .  New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted .   By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!




Obama has been placing anti gun judges in the lower courts...where the initial decisions against guns will start...and the next President could change the court completely for the next 30 years......and lefties do not honor legal precedent.......


----------



## Missourian (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> And BTW, if you do not have a closed fence around your pool, or if you allow your toddler to wander around inside such fence unsupervised, you can be arrested for child endangerment, abuse, or neglect.



See ^^^ right here...no special law needed...which was my point exactly.

Pools,  more dangerous,  no special law needed,  your words.

Get it now?

We are in agreement.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM'  .   That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER .  New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted .   By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!
> ...



Ah I think those judges are immortal.  They all just keep working into crazy old age.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Ever had someone threaten  you with a  gun? Even if you are pro  gun,  no matter  how well armed  you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you  in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38  in your bedside  won't help much when  you are roused out of your  that haze of sleep.




You have no idea what you are talking about.......at all......please....learn something...go to thearmedcitizen site...or thetruthaobutguns and actually read the stories of actual people who actually use guns for self defense.....if you  did that...and did some research you would see you are completely wrong...

Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack on average 1.6 million times a year...an average taken from 16 different studies on actual gun use in self  defense...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > And BTW, if you do not have a closed fence around your pool, or if you allow your toddler to wander around inside such fence unsupervised, you can be arrested for child endangerment, abuse, or neglect.
> ...




Exactly.....if your child is killed because you left your gun unattended...you can be arrested already......same thing with any negligence with a child......I'm not sure why guns deserve special treatment considering they accidentally kill fewer children than the furniture in your home, or the pool or your cleaning products.......

They have a phobia about guns.....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Ever had someone threaten  you with a  gun? Even if you are pro  gun,  no matter  how well armed  you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you  in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38  in your bedside  won't help much when  you are roused out of your  that haze of sleep.
> ...



And about 230 criminals are shot in defense each year.  So I wouldn't recommend buying into those surveys.  They have been debunked in many ways.    But there is no doubt people use guns in defense.  I feel the NCVS number is much closer with reality at 108,000 a year.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Ever had someone threaten  you with a  gun? Even if you are pro  gun,  no matter  how well armed  you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you  in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38  in your bedside  won't help much when  you are roused out of your  that haze of sleep.




There are stories and videos...shown here on U.S. of criminals pointing a gun at a victim and the victim drawing their own gun and defeating the criminal.....happens all the time......people attacked from ambush, and shot.....and still able to draw their weapon and fight off the criminal and survive....please....read actual stories....and pay less attention to the anti-gun nut propaganda.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...




Again....law abiding citizens are not out to kill people, even criminals...so most gun defenses never involve firiing the gun.....and again....the National Crime Victimization Survey is not a study on the self defense use of guns.....it is about crime victimization so there is no way it is even close to being accurate...

My number of 1.6 million times comes from averaging 16 different actual studies on Americans using guns for self defense, done by different independent researchers, from both public and private research groups, with many of them anti gun...and others which are neutral.........

So 108,000 is not even close to being the accurate number....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a  firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM.  it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.




again...you know nothing about what you are speaking about.......


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Over 20 year old studies.  Crime has come down over 30% since those were done. How do you account for that in your 1.6 number?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Again....we have been driven out of Iraq and Afghanistan by backward ass muslim terrorists using pickup trucks and AK-47s  vs.  our tanks, jets, drones and the best trained troops in the world........because they just didn't quit and the democrats here didn't want to fight....so tell me again how AR-15s in the hands of 5 million Americans, better trained, many U.S. vets, better educated, fighting in our own country........would lose to a military who won't be completely in the fight mentally or spiritually........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




I didn't.  Barak obama did...he commissioned the CDC to look at all the research to date, even stuff I don't have, and he did this in 2013 and spent 10 million dollars doing it.......and he came back with the numbers between 500,000 and 3 million, so my number is right in the middle of his, an anti gunner, research.......complain to him.....

And thanks for pointing out that while more Americans own and carry guns for protection...the crime rate has gone down, not up.....and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up.........


----------



## MaryL (Mar 21, 2015)

Ever had someone point a gun at YOU? I have. Wasn't a nice feeling. By  a relative, he wanted to  SHOOT me...because I was pouring his booze down the sink...He later died, and cancer wasn't  scared of  guns. My  da passed away from lung cancer from smoking ....Cancer .


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



We weren't driven out, we ran them over.  It was policing them we didn't want to do forever.  Nor can we afford to do it.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And we are leaving.....essentially we are being driven out...by the lack of the will to fight....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



500 is 1/3 of your 1.6.  and well if it is 3 million than that means there have been 90 million defenses the last 30 year?  That's more than one for every gun owner in the country.  Yet I have tons of gun owner friends and family who have never had one.  Not believable.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



We are deciding to leave, not being driven out.  Nobody wants to pay to police them forever.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Hmmm...yet we are still in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea.....and those wars ended when?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Sorry....16 studies conducted by actual researchers say you are wrong.....that trumps what you feel........


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 21, 2015)

I load this board.
Never a day goes by when its members prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and.or dishonesty.
Please do keep up the good work.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

good point , USA still in Korea , Japan , Germany .  mrobama was just doing as his friends wanted him to do , amazing that mrobama was elected twice .  That alone says quite a bit about the intelligence of his supporters that are here arguing for gun control !!


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



We have basses there.  When was the last time they did any fighting?  It's much more expensive when there is actual fighting.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




And do you think our government...in the face of 88 million gun owners wouldn't decide to not murder our citizens?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And we didn't reach the point of not fighting for quite a while.....and we are still there....


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

we have bases there because after kicking their azzes in the case of Japan and Germany the USA decided to stick around by agreement .  As far as Korea , might be fighting there in the morning , the war has never ended !!


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Several of those surveys say it is only 800k.  That would make you off by 100% too high.  And those were over 20 years ago so subtract 30%.  The 1.6 is way off.  But what really trumps everything is the 230 criminals shot and killed in defense.  No way people are pulling guns on criminals over a million times and only 230 get killed.  Over 600 are killed each year just in accidental shootings.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



 Say that again?


----------



## toxicmedia (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


That's put in a very confusing way.

How about "do you think our government would decide to murder our citizens in the face of 88 miliion gun owners?"

First, the government wouldn't try to murder the citizens.

Second, if they did, they'd bomb them from the air, and it wouldn't matter what kind of home protection you have.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



I think that has nothing to do with it.  I think our troops are the best people we have.  With 24/7 news, cell phones, and the internet nobody can ever fool them into attacking citizens.  Those days are long past.  That is why so many countries where the citizens have no guns are also safe.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

yeah currently EVOLVING jurisprudence , libs love that concept , they like the so called Evolving Constitution rather than the plain and understandable reading of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights .


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Brain...feelings have no place in research...which is why so many anti-gun researchers lie in their methods.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Sorry.....small, well led, well armed forces have forced larger better armed forces to give up......in particular us against muslim terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.......the dems didn't want to win, and pulled us out.....


----------



## toxicmedia (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Ummm, no.

Your scenario includes the government killing citizens, not armed insurgents, or terrorists.

If they didn't try and pussy foot around colaterals...they'd have easilly wiped out everybody in Afghanistan and Iraq....flat like a parking lot.

So maybe you should clarify exactly what this "government killing citizens" would be like.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I think common sense has a place in research.  If you do a survey and extrapolate the numbers and the total is impossible to be right you did something wrong.  There haven't been 90 million defenses the last 30 years.  It just takes common sense to figure that out.  And there is no way a criminal is shot and killed one every 7,000 defenses.  And if there were that many defenses I'd know somebody who had one.  So sometimes you need to just use some common sense and realize it isn't right.  Your surveys only talked to 3,000-5000 people.  There is a lot of room for error when you try to extrapolate that for 300 million people.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



We ran them over and then our military was forced to police. That's not what they should be doing.  Nobody wants to pay for their security any longer.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Well....Mexico....the government, in conjunction with the drug cartels routinely kills thousands of Mexican citizens each year.........it isn't even the entire government...many times local aspects of the federal and local government acting against unarmed citizens.....

Rwanda....government backed militias murdered 800,000 innocent people with machetes.....the government incited the violence then did nothing to stop it....

1940s Germany....a modern nation state....we know what happened....did the German people in the 1920s envision the death camps that were a mere 20 years away?

As I have in my signature....

---Reason for guns...criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, *government inability to protect, government murder*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...




yet we continue to pay for Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea......and they aren't even actively violent....


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

one theory is that they wouldn't bomb because of the collateral damage on other USA citizens plus ruination of infrastructure 'TM' .  I don't know what might happen , should be interesting and its one reason that I dislike enlisting illegal immigrant recruits into USA military with the promise of pay and citizenship !!


----------



## toxicmedia (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Never mind the fact that Germany and Japan are not under threat.

We should pull out ofe everywhere, except the middle east, and South Korea


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Sorry....they predict national elections on smaller samples......and Kleck used over 4,990 respondents to come up with his numbers......again, 16 studies...actually more but that is all I have access to, over 40 years, the most recent in 2013 done by obama and his CDC, an anti gun president and anti gun organization, and they support the average of 1.6 million each year.....the lowest hard numbers for the studies...760,000....

Even with that number.....gun murders 8-9,000 a year vs. 760,000 times violent crime is stopped or prevented and lives saved....  you can do the math brain.......then compare it to the actual average of 1.6 million times a year.....


----------



## toxicmedia (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> one theory is that they wouldn't bomb because of the collateral damage on other USA citizens plus ruination of infrastructure 'TM' ,  I don't know what might happen , should be interesting and its one reason that I dislike enlisting illegal immigrant recruits into USA military with the promise of pay and citizenship !!


That's a pretty nutty theory.

I ahve a friend who thinks the end times are here, and that theory sounds like something he'd believe


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

might be nutty , who knows , gov is getting weirder all the time 'tm' .  Whoever thought that we'd be negotiating with iran and a a 'cic' like we have running the USA military .


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Well....Mexico....the government, in conjunction with the drug cartels routinely kills thousands of Mexican citizens each year.........it isn't even the entire government...many times local aspects of the federal and local government acting against unarmed citizens.....
> 
> Rwanda....government backed militias murdered 800,000 innocent people with machetes.....the government incited the violence then did nothing to stop it....
> 
> ...



When has the government in mexico ever killed citizens?

You are comparing us to Rwanda?

Germany they didn't even have TV's much less 24/7 news, cell phones and the internet.

Why are Danish citizens so safe?  They have few guns.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I will simplify my argument for those that don't get it. There are common sense laws regarding gun possession and ownership, including, the responsibility to keep them out of the hands of unsupervised children. A couple of you are so addicted to "the right to own and carry guns" that you don't even think that THOSE laws are appropriate. I maintain that you are so far beyond the pale of "responsible gun owners" that you have crossed over into the NUT zone. It therefore follows to some of us, that there are plenty of gun nuts who consider ANY gun restriction, whether "common sense", or not, to be wrong, and who are therefor not even worth arguing with. I like to know who they are, so that I don't waste my time even attempting to find common ground with them.
> ...



You are NOT one of the couple of people who rejected even child safety laws. I was referring to two other posters.


----------



## toxicmedia (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> might be nutty , who knows , gov is getting weirder all the time 'tm' .  Whoever thought that we'd be negotiating with iran and a a 'cic' like we have running the USA military .


I don't subscribe to the notion that the US is at any significant historical point, good or bad.

If anything, we're in such a rut that it's getting boring to be an American.

The post WWII euphoria wore off by 2009.

Our future involves mediocrity, not an apocolypse


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

and some of both dems and repubs think its a good idea to enlist illegal immigrants into USA military and after serving and doing as ordered these mercenaries get citizenship 'TM' !!    Doesn't sound far fetched to me as its a plan that has some advocates in USA government .


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



In 2013 they did no new surveys.  They just looked at old studies.  4,990 is not very many.  Elections have two answers.  Gun defenses are dependent on many.  Was there a defense?  When did it occur?  Was it really a defense or just an intimidation by the defender...


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

lots of bad change happening in the USA 'TM' !!     Apocalypse ,aww , its just an ongoing discussion and you did reply !!


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > This looks at the anger and the general rude behavior of some anti gun people...it explains where that comes from......
> ...


ridiculing your silly anti gun posts is hardly the sign of anger


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


what causes this sort of idiocy?


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Why anti gun people are so angry....."
> 
> There is no such thing as 'anti-gun people,' consequently no one is 'angry.'
> 
> ...


still pretending to understand constitutional law but you don't know what dicta is.  at least 25% of the public wants to ban handguns


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





anything civilian police officers use in terms of firearms-us other civilians should be able to own  and sporting purpose has no relevance to the second amendment.


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.
> 
> A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.


the federal government doesn't have the proper power to make private sellers conduct a background check because they cannot engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE pursuant to federal law.  and the BRADY BILL DID NOT DECREASE GUN CRIME AT ALL


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



laws that only impact honest gun owners are not reasonable per se.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.
> 
> A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.




Sorry....any gun sold over the internet that goes across state lines must be processed through a FFL......it is against the law otherwise.....

Background checks, the ones we have now stop law abiding citizens more than any criminals....criminals simply use people who can pass a background check to get their guns...or they steal them.....


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.
> ...


UBGCs are nothing more than attempts by the anti gun scum suckers to create a demand for universal gun registration which is the holy grail for the gun banners


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



The point is, most of the time, criminals are not going to use legal means to obtain a weapon.  I think one reason is that it can be easily traced back to them.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.
> 
> A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.




How exactly would a background check stop him if he isn't a felon genius.......?  We don't have a mental illness screen in the system now...and if he lies on the form on the question about mental illness he still gets the gun.......so again...you are wrong........

And if he wants a gun bad enough he will get a gun....no law will stop him...ask the three terrorists in France...a gun with complete gun control of automatic rifles, grenades, handguns and rocket propelled grenades...no gun stores, no 30 round magazines.....and these guys 1 a convicted felon and he and his brother on a government terrorist watch list crossed an international border to another country with complete gun control and bought all those weapons for 5,000 dollars....

So tell me....if Europe can't keep their criminals and terrorists from getting illegal guns.....how do we?

The only rational gun control is putting people who break the law with guns in jail for a long time......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 21, 2015)

Why the john hinkely story is a lie....and why you can't trust anti gunners in particular the brady campaign against gun violence....


Gun Foes Should Tell The Whole Story - tribunedigital-chicagotribune


Despite the misleading implications about criminal and mental record checks in the fundraising, Mrs. Brady doesn`t formally claim that such checks would have affected Hinckley. Rather, she often argues: ``He lied about his address and used an old Texas driver`s license to purchase that revolver. He was not a Texas resident. A police check would have stopped him from buying a handgun in Texas.`` (Persons can only buy handguns in the state where they reside.)

The trouble is, the evidence indicates that Hinckley was a lawful Texas resident. He bought the guns in Lubbock in October 1980, six months before the assassination attempt. That summer he had attended both sessions at Texas Tech in Lubbock. According to federal rules, a university student is considered a resident of the jurisdiction in which he attends school and may purchase firearms there. Hinckley was also listed in the Lubbock phone book.

Significantly, after the assassination attempt, Hinckley was subjected to an intensive federal investigation. The Department of Justice used every resource possible to ensure his conviction. Notably, Hinckley was not charged with illegally purchasing the handguns in Texas. Had the prosecutors believed that he was guilty of an illegal gun purchase, felony charges would probably have been brought. After all, Hinckley would then have had to convince a jury that he was insane, not just on the day of the assassination but six months before, when he bought his two handguns.

If the full resources of the Department of Justice did not find enough evidence to charge Hinckley with an unlawful gun purchase, it is not realistic to claim that a seven-day background check would have found the exact same transaction illegal. Besides, Handgun Control promises Congress that the waiting period is just a simple criminal and mental records check, not a detailed residency verification.

Never, ever trust anti gunners....they will do anything to stop you from getting a gun....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.
> 
> A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.



Well, maybe that is the problem.  People who shoot and kill a person, like that guy, should NEVER be let out of prison . . . or the mental institution.  We are too SOFT on criminals.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't know but, IMO, if a person takes a life, that person should be incarcerated for life, and that means LIFE, not 30 years and NO parole.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

turtledude said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



They will never be satisfied.  That much is obvious.  And it's obviously not LIVES they care about.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.
> ...



He didn't kill anyone.  Though I would like to see him locked up forever for trying.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Yes, trying to assassinate a POTUS is a pretty big deal.  I would think that would be deserving of a life sentence.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Well that is one thing we agree on.  That is strange.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Will wonders ever cease?


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

hey Turtledude , good posts , thanks , also like your sigline that 'man is born free but everywhere he's in chains '  .   Something similar !!


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .



Explain?  I don't recall that.  I am pro the death penalty and locking up violent criminals for life.  I do think we are doing something wrong when our jails are the fullest in the world, yet our crime rates aren't the lowest.  But that is a different topic.


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .



brain contradicts himself? SAY ITS NOT SO!!


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .
> ...


its the war on drugs-which anti gun 'Tards want to extend to a war on guns


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

turtledude said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



You mean jails are full from drug offenders and guns get the blame?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



I think he means that the two "wars" are very similar.  IOW, you are going to have a bunch of people in jail for NON-violent crimes.  Perhaps they own a gun that is banned.


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


no brainless, that is not what I said


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...


Proving who has the brains on this thread.  and its not the one who claims to be a brain!


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 21, 2015)

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



What you said wasn't very clear.  She even had to say I think he means.  If her translation is correct you have an interesting point.  That is one of the reasons I don't support any sort of ban.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

think it was you Brian , long thread , maybe I'll try to find the post , maybe it was the other gun control guy guy that has a name starting with 'Bmfrw'  or something like that !!


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



not publicly at least


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

think it was you Brian , long thread , maybe I'll try to find the post , maybe it was the other gun control guy guy that has a name starting with 'Bmfrw'  or something like that !!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Why the john hinkely story is a lie....and why you can't trust anti gunners in particular the brady campaign against gun violence....
> 
> 
> Gun Foes Should Tell The Whole Story - tribunedigital-chicagotribune
> ...



I am talking about the fact that John Hinckley can legally buy a gun TODAY. Please pay attention.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Interesting point that TD made.  Our system would be clogged up with prisoners for non-violent crimes, and the black market for guns would become VERY lucrative.  Just as it is for drugs.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Why the john hinkely story is a lie....and why you can't trust anti gunners in particular the brady campaign against gun violence....
> ...



Well, he should not be out of his mental hospital, and if he is no longer "insane" (although I can't see how THAT can be.  You can "control" it sometimes with meds, but you can't cure it), then he should be serving out the rest of his days in a penitentiary, IMO.  There is absolutely NO reason why that man should be walking free after trying to assassinate a POTUS.  He is a dangerous guy would could flip his lid at any time.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

As for the argument that bad guys can easily buy guns illegally, so no background check law should be passed, you might as well cancel all requirements for having a driver's license, since most illegals and people who have lost their licenses due to DWI's drive anyway.


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Why the john hinkely story is a lie....and why you can't trust anti gunners in particular the brady campaign against gun violence....
> ...



uh he cannot today since he has been adjudicated mentally incompetent.  The Brady bill would not have stopped JH back when he shot Reagan though


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> As for the argument that bad guys can easily buy guns illegally, so no background check law should be passed, you might as well cancel all requirements for having a driver's license, since most illegals and people who have lost their licenses due to DWI's drive anyway.


the purpose of UBGCs is to create a demand or "need" for complete registration.  it has no ability to be enforced without that.  Do you support registration


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

only thing is Chrisl , 'potus' is no more important than you are . Assassination  , murder are the same thing no matter who is murdered . And keep in mind that the only reason the insane or mentally messed up are released is because of 'expurts' that are never held responsible when they make a mistake .


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

driving is said to be a Privilege 'VS' , 2nd amendment Right is a RIGHT !!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> driving is said to be a Privilege 'VS' , 2nd amendment Right is a RIGHT !!



So, here we go again. John Hinckley has a "Right" to buy a gun, and a background check would infringe upon that "Right"?


----------



## turtledude (Mar 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > driving is said to be a Privilege 'VS' , 2nd amendment Right is a RIGHT !!
> ...


a background check would not have stopped JH from buying the gun he shot RWR with contrary to the lies of Sawah Bwady


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> only thing is Chrisl , 'potus' is no more important than you are . Assassination  , murder are the same thing no matter who is murdered . And keep in mind that the only reason the insane or mentally messed up are released is because of 'expurts' that are never held responsible when they make a mistake .



I know, but a person who would attempt an assassination . . . is just nuts, IMO.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 21, 2015)

thankyou Chrisl but the elites like the 'potus'  [and Hilary] walk around like they are more important than they're employers which is you and me .  Off topic but its like hilary is above the law due to her being a special type Gov employee that shouldn't be held to the same standards as regular Americans . I detest the idea of an American royalty that is growing in the USA !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 21, 2015)

pismoe said:


> thankyou Chrisl but the elites like the 'potus'  [and Hilary] walk around like they are more important than they're employers which is you and me .  Off topic but its like hilary is above the law due to her being a special type Gov employee that shouldn't be held to the same standards as regular Americans . I detest the idea of an American royalty that is growing in the USA !!



I understand what you are saying, but the POTUS is a VERY important a person.  The leader of the free world and all.    Although I consider my life important too, the whole system isn't going to be affected if I die.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

your whole system will be affected though !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> your whole system will be affected though !!



Sure, but it's not like the whole world would care, nor would the government be affected.


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Except for this,
_And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some darkalley. _​everything you posted is patent dis-information.

There's a reason the anti-rights advocate such as yourself cannot manage to present a rational point... you don't have one.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

squeeze berry said:


> I have never bought a gun when I was not required to pass a background check
> 
> WTF are these libs yammering about?



Guess you never went to a gun show in a state that allows guns sold without background checks.

Americans for Responsible Solutions POLITICO Closing gun show loophole is right way to go - Americans for Responsible Solutions


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



WOW, you sure made a strong case...


----------



## Spinster (Mar 22, 2015)

On the one hand, I don't object to a background check when purchasing guns if we have nothing to hide. On the other, however, I don't agree with government's involvement into our right to bear arms. Have a friend who experienced Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome as a result of fulfilling his military duty for our country. Now he can't pass a background check solely as a result of his diagnosis. He's not a threat to others, but if he wanted to harm/do away with himself I don't see the reason for government intervention. In my mind, we are so extremely careful about not trodding on another's Right To Choose, yet in the fore mentioned example it is denied this individual. Isn't that a double standard?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I have fired many weapons, including semi-automatic pistols. 

The similarity between an assault rifle and a semi automatic handgun end at rate of fire. 
Most assault rifles were designed to be effective up to 450 yards. Most handguns are accurate only up to about twenty-five yards.  Rifle rounds have twice the velocity and four times the muzzle energy of handgun rounds. 

Are you being dishonest or obtuse? 

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.
> ...



You are a plethora of misinformation and stating the absurd... 

Who in their right mind would buy a gun for someone who can't pass a background check???

*Straw Purchaser Gets 8 Years in Prison*


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Beyond ironic...

*Gun Murders Shot Up 25% After Missouri Repealed Universal Background Check Law*

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


We both know it, in spite of your fatuous use of emoticons.

Background checks and "assault-weapons" bans do not stop black market gun transactions, and do not prevent violent sociopaths from obtaining guns.

For OBVIOUS reasons.

Background checks and AWBs are effective in their designed purposes: to be a barrier to the acquisition of guns by law abiding citizens., to put law abiding folks at a disadvantage when confronted by criminal violence, and to strengthen the black market transactions for gun acquisition.

The question is, what possible problem do anti-rights proponents have with law-abiding citizens openly and freely acquiring guns?

Another question: Why do anti-rights proponents prefer that law abiding citizens be at a tactical disadvantage to violent sociopaths?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> squeeze berry said:
> 
> 
> > I have never bought a gun when I was not required to pass a background check
> ...


There is no "gun show loophole." It is another lib talking point divorced from reality.  Like "hands up dont shoot"  Total fabrication.  Only rubes like you fall for it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 22, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Ever had someone threaten  you with a  gun? Even if you are pro  gun,  no matter  how well armed  you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you  in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38  in your bedside  won't help much when  you are roused out of your  that haze of sleep.


I've had a gun pointed at me and it is too late at that point but it's dim to believe that's the only scenario people face in life. If I'm roused out of my sleep and someone is in my home then they aren't going home. And you would do what for defense? Pee? Cry? Beg?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Talk about 'emotions'...the most powerful 'emotion' is FEAR. The right wing mind is infested and overwhelmingly controlled by fear...Your need to create 'monsters of the mind' is a dead giveaway...

And you are full of shit...

*Closing gun show loophole is right way to go*

The NRA is calling on legislators to make it easier, instead of harder, for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to get guns.

You read that right. Not harder, easier. Which isn’t what the more than 74 percent of NRA members in this country who are law-abiding citizens and responsible gun owners, as Gabby and I are, and who support expanding background checks, believe.

Making the system of background checks fair and consistent isn’t hard to understand. If you don’t think there should be two different sets of rules, leveling the playing field and expanding the effective National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the way to go. For the same reasons we don’t make getting screened for bombs or weapons at the airport optional, or registering your car something you only have to do if you want to, having a giant loophole in the background check system just doesn’t make sense.

But it’s clear that for reasons of their own, the NRA leadership has decided to dig in and — against all evidence and common sense — preserve a system that makes it easier for criminals to get guns.
Here are the facts:

Criminals and the mentally ill do submit to background checks — and any effort to convince you otherwise is flat out wrong. We know roughly 1.7 million criminals and mentally ill people have been stopped from buying a gun by a background check since 1999. What we don’t know is how many of them got a gun anyway at a gun show or different private sale.

Criminals use the gun show and private sales loophole to get their guns, and then they use them to kill and injure. Eighty percent of criminals who committed a crime with a gun said they got their gun through a private transfer with no background check.

Background checks are easy and fast. When I bought a hunting rifle at a Walmart in November, my instant background check took less than five minutes; 91 percent of checks are instantaneous.

An extension of the current background check system cannot by law or by practice result in a registry of guns or gun owners. Such a registry is against the law, and the federal government does not even collect the records that would constitute a registry.

The reality is that closing the gun-show loophole and expanding a simple system that works will respect, not encroach, on our Second Amendment rights. Ninety-one percent of background checks are completed instantaneously and records are kept by the folks who run them, not by the government. And we’re not looking to limit private transfers — proposed legislation should and will take into account transfers between family members, for example, and the needs of citizens in rural locations.

The NRA leadership and others are right to identify some systematic challenges we face in expanding the NICS background system — like streamlining the records process, and prosecuting more of the criminals who do try to buy a gun — but they are flat out wrong to use those operational challenges as a reason to say no to a simple universal background check.

As a former astronaut, I’ve got a pretty seasoned perspective on operational challenges. When something breaks on the space shuttle, the crew doesn’t throw up their hands and decide to go to the golf course instead of the International Space Station. We roll up our sleeves and figure out how to make it work. That means having the perseverance to find solutions, to look closely at systems that aren’t working, so that we achieve new heights of accomplishments. And working on complicated solutions means having a straightforward grasp of the facts and a willingness to find common purpose with others, no matter how diverse the team is.

That’s the approach Gabby took to Congress, too, and it’s a quintessentially American approach we all ought to take as we work to protect the safety of our communities. Background checks protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, and they serve a patriotic purpose: making sure that we have one system for those who want to purchase a firearm, not two: one for those desperate to avoid detection and bent on violence, and one for the rest of us.

_Capt. Mark Kelly served in the U.S. Navy for 25 years, flew combat missions during Operation Desert Storm and was the final commander of the Space Shuttle Endeavor. With his wife, former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, he is the co-founder of Americans for Responsible Solutions._


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

mark Kelly is just the current BRADY , a statist in uniform .   His uniform impresses some people I guess .   He has found a way to make a few bucks based on a personal situation !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> mark Kelly is just the current BRADY , a statist in uniform .   His uniform impresses some people I guess .   He has found a way to make a few bucks based on a personal situation !!



Your comments only reveal YOUR character, not Mark Kelly's...


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

mark Kelly is the one lacking in character , a statist in uniform .   He is simply one of the kings men doing the kings / govs business of disarming Ameicans and making money off what happened to his wife .  Simply a new team Brady but reversed in roles Bfg !!


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

---  mark Kelly bio --- a statist from a family of statists .   He is a gun controller .   --- Astronaut Bio Mark Kelly 7 2011   ---  there you BFG , Now on your knees !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> ---  mark Kelly bio --- a statist from a family of statists .   He is a gun controller .   --- Astronaut Bio Mark Kelly 7 2011   ---  there you BFG , Now on your knees !!



Does mommy know you are on her computer?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> ---  mark Kelly bio --- a statist from a family of statists .   He is a gun controller .   --- Astronaut Bio Mark Kelly 7 2011   ---  there you BFG , Now on your knees !!



WOW, what an anti-American piece of shit Kelly is...

*Mark E. Kelly (CAPTAIN, USN)
NASA Astronaut*

*PERSONAL DATA:*  Mark Edward Kelly is the son of Richard and Patricia Kelly, two retired police officers.  He was born in Orange, New Jersey, on February 21, 1964, and raised in West Orange, New Jersey.  Kelly is married to U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  Kelly’s identical twin brother, Scott J. Kelly, is also an astronaut and served as commander of International Space Station (ISS) Expedition 26.  The Kelly brothers are the only siblings who have both traveled in space.

*EDUCATION:*  Kelly graduated from Mountain High School in 1982.  He received a B.S. degree in marine engineering and nautical science from the United States Merchant Marine Academy, graduating with highest honors in 1986.  In 1994, he received an M.S. degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.

*AWARDS:  *Defense Superior Service Medal (with one bronze oak leaf cluster); Distinguished Flying Cross; Air Medal (with valor device and three bronze service stars); Navy Commendation Medal (with valor device and one bronze service star); Navy Achievement Medal; Southwest Asia Service Medal (with one bronze service star); Navy Expeditionary Medal; National Defense Service Medal (with one bronze service star); Navy Unit Commendation (with one bronze service star); Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (with one bronze service star); Overseas Service Ribbon; Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia); Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait); NASA Exceptional Service Medal; NASA Space Flight Medal (with three bronze service stars).

*EXPERIENCE:*  In December 1987, Kelly became a naval aviator and received initial training on the A-6E Intruder attack aircraft.  He was then assigned to VA-115 (Attack Squadron 115) in Atsugi, Japan, and made two deployments to the Persian Gulf on the aircraft carrier USS Midway, flying 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm.  After receiving his master’s degree, he attended the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School from June 1993 to June 1994.  He has logged more than 5,000 hours in more than 50 different aircraft and has over 375 carrier landings.

At this time, Kelly remains on active duty. He is on loan to NASA and holds the rank of Captain in the U.S. Navy.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2011, Kelly announced his retirement from the U.S. Navy, and NASA, effective October 1, 2011.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

hey , like I said , he is a statist and a gun controller , taxpayers paid his and his families / parents wages for his entire life I suppose . He is a kings man with latest goal of Disarming Americans using his wife as a prop !!    You and others can worship him if you like but I have no use for him BFG !!   Brady gang reduced to one member that is losing steam so replacement is needed , 'ta da' meet the Kellys !!


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

and from 'new jersey' land of the mafia and corrupt politic , an east coaster to boot BFG !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> hey , like I said , he is a statist and a gun controller , taxpayers paid his and his families / parents wages for his entire life I suppose . He is a kings man with latest goal of Disarming Americans using his wife as a prop !!    You and others can worship him if you like but I have no use for him BFG !!   Brady gang reduced to one member that is losing steam so replacement is needed , 'ta da' meet the Kellys !!



So please tell me how closing a loophole that allows criminals to buy guns at gun shows is "Disarming Americans"?

Funny, the NRA is infested with "statist" card carriers...

Strong Majority of Americans NRA Members Back Gun Control - US News

The survey purposely over-sampled gun owners and those living in homes with guns to better estimate the differences between gun-owners and non-gun owners. For the most part, the study found there was little difference in support between the two.

"Not only are gun owners and non-gun-owners very much aligned in their support for proposals to strengthen U.S. gun laws, but the majority of NRA members are also in favor of many of these policies," Daniel Webster, co-author of the study and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said in a statement.

In addition to favoring universal background checks, the majority of NRA members surveyed supported prohibiting people with recent alcohol or drug charges to purchase guns, and 70 percent supported a mandatory minimum of 2 years in prison for selling guns to persons who are not legally allowed to have one.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

I don't play your game BFG , I simply say that Americans have the RIGHT to arms .


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

but here , a little video of your boy 'mark kelly' and his UNCONTROLLED dog on a beach BFG .  ---  Mark Kelly Dog Attacks Baby Seal in this Shocking Video Heavy.com  ---


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> I don't play your game BFG , I simply say that Americans have the RIGHT to arms .



Not exactly...you simply believe felons buying guns is a RIGHT.


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


So, I'm full of shit while your little article both validates the point I made, and then immediately blunders ahead with a reiteration of patent nonsense that fails to consider any valid point, in favor of validating their superstitious fear of guns.

Of the "1.7 million" criminal attempts to obtain guns cited by the article--attempts, mind you, where a record of the perpetrator's name and address was created--how many prosecutions resulted? Why don't you look that up? HINT: The answer is not even close to "1.7 million."

Background checks and "assault-weapons" bans do not stop black market gun transactions, and do not prevent violent sociopaths from obtaining guns.

For OBVIOUS reasons.

Background checks and AWBs are effective in their designed purposes: to be a barrier to the acquisition of guns by law abiding citizens., to put law abiding folks at a disadvantage when confronted by criminal violence, and to strengthen the black market transactions for gun acquisition.

The question is, what possible problem do anti-rights proponents have with law-abiding citizens openly and freely acquiring guns?

Another question: Why do anti-rights proponents prefer that law abiding citizens be at a tactical disadvantage to violent sociopaths?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> but here , a little video of your boy 'mark kelly' and his UNCONTROLLED dog on a beach BFG .  ---  Mark Kelly Dog Attacks Baby Seal in this Shocking Video Heavy.com  ---



And I don't play your game...

Here is your term for the day:

non sequitur


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows.


This is a lie.  he cannot buy a gun sold by a licensed dealer because there is a background check, and so he cannot buy any gun he chooses.


> He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check.


You live in a free country.  Enjoy.


> The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun.


Another lie.   Background checks also curtail the rights of the law abiding.


> To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.


You know that he can never legally buy a gun.

Thank you for contuning to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Well gee whizzzzzz... there is a simple solution. Just have the criminals admit they are not law abiding citizens...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> I am talking about the fact that John Hinckley can legally buy a gun TODAY. Please pay attention.


No.  He cannot.  Ever.
You know this, and so your statement, above, is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> As for the argument that bad guys can easily buy guns illegally, so no background check law should be passed, you might as well cancel all requirements for having a driver's license, since most illegals and people who have lost their licenses due to DWI's drive anyway.


Non--sequitur.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



Background checks are much more a barrier for criminals than law abiding citizens.  I'm a law abiding citizen and I've never had trouble buying a gun.  Given gun sales I'd say they aren't a barrier for any law abiding citizen...


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

and Felons , well you guys release them at taxpayer expense back into society instead of keeping them locked up and even though I have no use for drug users even a nonviolent  marijuana guy can be a felon . So yeah , in the case of a nonviolent person called felon when he has done his time , paid his debt and is released into society I'd like to see him released with full RIGHTS restored and with no trail so he can maybe get a job !!    Violent felons of course should be locked up forever BFG and Brian !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> and Felons , well you guys release them at taxpayer expense back into society instead of keeping them locked up and even though I have no use for drug users even a nonviolent  marijuana guy can be a felon . So yeah , in the case of a nonviolent person called felon when he has done his time , paid his debt and is released into society I'd like to see him released with full RIGHTS restored and with no trail so he can maybe get a job !!    Violent felons of course should be locked up forever BFG and Brian !!



You guys?


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> I have fired many weapons, including semi-automatic pistols.
> 
> The similarity between an assault rifle and a semi automatic handgun end at rate of fire.
> Most assault rifles were designed to be effective up to 450 yards. Most handguns are accurate only up to about twenty-five yards.  Rifle rounds have twice the velocity and four times the muzzle energy of handgun rounds.
> ...




Did you forget what we were talking about?

Who was shot from further than 25 yards at Newtown?

Who brought up rate of fire?

Still waiting for you to come up with one of those reasonable gun laws that would have averted Newtown...


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > I have fired many weapons, including semi-automatic pistols.
> ...



I agree that any assault rifle ban is silly.  They are seldom used in murders and when they are a semi auto handgun would have been just as effective but more concealable.  I do however believe in magazine capacity limits.  Studies show defense is 2-3 shots.  Any more and all the strays are just endangering everyone around.  The only time I see people needing hi cap magazines it is to kill lots of innocent people.  Gang bangers also get off a few extra stray killing innocent people thanks to them.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

well , as employees you can put that limitation on cops and it might be ok but regular taxpayers should have the same capability as the military Brian .


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


What do you suppose that plan will accomplish?


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

Brian sounds like he doesn't understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > I have fired many weapons, including semi-automatic pistols.
> ...



I already answered your question. Are you now going to claim a pistol is as accurate as a rifle at anything but point blank range? 

I asked you a question that you ignored. I will restate/rephrase/expand it.

I support reasonable gun control measures. I do NOT want to disarm Americans. I DO support universal background checks for any gun sales at gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

I also support a ban on assault weapons and large magazines that have no use for personal protection.

WHAT do you support?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> well , as employees you can put that limitation on cops and it might be ok but regular taxpayers should have the same capability as the military Brian .



You are already limited in that regard.


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Interesting. In what way?



Brain357 said:


> I'm a law abiding citizen and I've never had trouble buying a gun.


Neither, apparently does anyone. It's just that you are compelled to ask permission, and criminals feel no such compulsion.

Why is that?



Brain357 said:


> Given gun sales I'd say they aren't a barrier for any law abiding citizen...


Then what's the actual purpose for them then?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



I was making fun of you...


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

most of the USA can easily buy full capacity magazines Brian so I don't see any limitation in most of the USA on taxpayers !!


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

and if there was limitation I'd want that type of gun control done away with Brain !!


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> most of the USA can easily buy full capacity magazines Brian so I don't see any limitation in most of the USA on taxpayers !!



Does the military have machine guns?  Can you go to the store and buy a new made in 2015 machine gun?  The military has grenades.  Can you go to the store and buy a live grenades?  The military has rocket launchers.  Can run to the store and buy a rocket launcher with live rockets?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> and if there was limitation I'd want that type of gun control done away with Brain !!



Well that would be foolish.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



  I love a good mag dump every once and awhile.
Add a rubber band and bump fire it and it gets even better.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

machine guns are legal in most states Brian , of course there are controls that should be gotten rid of .  As far as Grenades go , Grenades are area weapons and the theory is that they aren't afforded the same 2nd Amendment protection that guns and one man weapons are afforded .   ---  you oughta go to a machine gun shoot some day , see whats legal Brian .


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> I agree that any assault rifle ban is silly.  They are seldom used in murders and when they are a semi auto handgun would have been just as effective but more concealable.



I agree.  Can you explain why gun control activists have such an irrational fear of them?




Brain357 said:


> I do however believe in magazine capacity limits.  Studies show defense is 2-3 shots.  Any more and all the strays are just endangering everyone around.  The only time I see people needing hi cap magazines it is to kill lots of innocent people.  Gang bangers also get off a few extra stray killing innocent people thanks to them.



I disagree with you here.  Gangbangers and criminals are going to get hi-cap magazines no matter what.  When you make something like this illegal,  the only people who follow the law are law abiding citizens.

I have a Ruger 10/22 with 25 round magazines.  I'd never choose it for self defense.  It mostly only goes to the range or to plink.

You going to be online for awhile?   This Week is on.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> machine guns are legal in most states Brian , of course there are controls that should be gotten rid of .  As far as Grenades go , Grenades are area weapons and the theory is that they aren't afforded the same 2nd Amendment protection that guns and one man weapons are afforded .   ---  you oughta go to a machine gun shoot some day , see whats legal Brian .



You didn't answer my question at all.  I know they are legal.  Can you go out and buy a new made in 2015 machine gun?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 22, 2015)

MaryL said:


> The other night, I heard this POP POP POP. Next day,I look at my garage, and there is a couple of bullet holes in it. Why? Fuck this stupid shit, somebody could have been killed.  Really?  Who the hell needs guns after this ...stupidity? Don't  debate this...it's rather obvious.



 Did you call the police?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 22, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Nobody is going to spring  for the damage  they caused, I don't need people shooting off guns period. That is where I am coming from.



 You dont have homeowners insurance?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that any assault rifle ban is silly.  They are seldom used in murders and when they are a semi auto handgun would have been just as effective but more concealable.
> ...


[/QUOTE]


I think it is because they have been used in a few mass shootings and look like military weapons.  Not everyone is a gun person so they look scary.  But I agree with you they are just a fancy looking hunting rifle with a large magazine.

Well this is what I think would happen if we put a ban on the sale of new hi cap magazine like we did previously.  And it would take a lot of years for it to have any real effect but would be a step in the right direction.  New sales would have mags with a limited magazine.  The value of the magazines that hold more would skyrocket and would eventually get hoarded up by the gun nuts.  As they become less easy to get the gang bangers won't have them as they don't need them to rob someone.  They use them now because they are the norm.  And it seems like the majority of mass shooters just run to the store and get a gun.  I doubt they will go through the effort of trying to get higher capacity magazines.  And if they do well I'd rather they have to go through more effort.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> As for the argument that bad guys can easily buy guns illegally, so no background check law should be passed, you might as well cancel all requirements for having a driver's license, since most illegals and people who have lost their licenses due to DWI's drive anyway.



Exactly...you can't prevent them from getting fake drivers licenses or stop them from driving without them...no law can prevent Law breaking....why don't you guys see that...it nullifies all of your ideas about background checks, gun registration, magazine limits........like a drivers license, all you can do is arrest and jail the guy driving without the license....you can't preempttively stop him from breaking that law....

background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns...ever....not here, not in Europe or anywhere else in the world.....all you can do is when you catch a criminal with a gun....you arrest them and lock them up...


but that isn't your concern is it......you really only care about Joe Citizen buying a gun....because you can make him not get a gun with the law....and you can scoop him up with background checks if he gets a false positive...or if he makes a mistake when he actually fills out the legal paperwork to get a gun...like that security guard who owned the gun legally, and wasn't a felin, but mistakenly left the loaded gun in his glove box after work.....now he is facing a felony...



That is the guy you want to get...that is the guy you can punish for having a gun....


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> most of the USA can easily buy full capacity magazines Brian so I don't see any limitation in most of the USA on taxpayers !!



If you are so concerned about the taxpayer, maybe you need to look at the whole picture?

The Public Health Cost of Gun Violence

Gun Violence Costs U.S. Health Care System Taxpayers Billions Each Year

What gun violence costs taxpayers every year - CBS News

JAMA Network JAMA The Medical Costs of Gunshot Injuries in the United States


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 22, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Ever had someone point a gun at YOU? I have. Wasn't a nice feeling. By  a relative, he wanted to  SHOOT me...because I was pouring his booze down the sink...He later died, and cancer wasn't  scared of  guns. My  da passed away from lung cancer from smoking ....Cancer .



  Should have been armed. And why would you let some nut job live in your house in the first place?
   And last of all...what the hell do cigarettes have to do with guns?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




I think it is because they have been used in a few mass shootings and look like military weapons.  Not everyone is a gun person so they look scary.  But I agree with you they are just a fancy looking hunting rifle with a large magazine.

Well this is what I think would happen if we put a ban on the sale of new hi cap magazine like we did previously.  And it would take a lot of years for it to have any real effect but would be a step in the right direction.  New sales would have mags with a limited magazine.  The value of the magazines that hold more would skyrocket and would eventually get hoarded up by the gun nuts.  As they become less easy to get the gang bangers won't have them as they don't need them to rob someone.  They use them now because they are the norm.  And it seems like the majority of mass shooters just run to the store and get a gun.  I doubt they will go through the effort of trying to get higher capacity magazines.  And if they do well I'd rather they have to go through more effort.[/QUOTE]

and it would be a back door ban as it has proven in Colorado....their 15 round magazine limit has made many models of perfectly legal handguns illegal, since they use magazines that hold more than 15 rounds....the one female state legislator said she didn't realize that would happen when they passed the law.....but she is a lying witch...that was exactly the plan.....

Brain.....magazine bans are gun bans by proxy....


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Looks like you're making fun of yourself.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > most of the USA can easily buy full capacity magazines Brian so I don't see any limitation in most of the USA on taxpayers !!
> ...




and guns save even more money each year in lives saved and criminals taken off the streets by average, law abiding citizens who use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives. 1.6 million times a year on average....

for example...the woman raped in Colorado because the college was a gun free zone....because she wasn't allowed to carry her gun...she was raped and at least two other women were raped, and at least one of those victims was murdered....

Each criminal captured by a law abiding citizen with a gun saves lives down the road...that doesn't get counted because the crimes don't happen...but it is an actual benefit....


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



All I did was state YOUR plan to keep criminals from buying guns in a legal setting...


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Make stuff up much? What plan are you talking about?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Spinster said:


> On the one hand, I don't object to a background check when purchasing guns if we have nothing to hide. On the other, however, I don't agree with government's involvement into our right to bear arms. Have a friend who experienced Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome as a result of fulfilling his military duty for our country. Now he can't pass a background check solely as a result of his diagnosis. He's not a threat to others, but if he wanted to harm/do away with himself I don't see the reason for government intervention. In my mind, we are so extremely careful about not trodding on another's Right To Choose, yet in the fore mentioned example it is denied this individual. Isn't that a double standard?




that is exactly why pro 2nd amendment people are concerned about the mental health aspect to background checks that everyone wants....we know how anti gunners think, and what they want......they will use a mental health check in order to keep non violent, non dangerous people who talk to a grief counselor over the death of a loved one, or someone talking to a family therapist about a divorce or family issues from ever being able to own a gun....that is what they see in mental health checks......a way to ban guns that won't need an open law that can be resisted and that will poll test positively because most people won't understand the full implication of their agenda...

Insomnia...will now ban you for life from getting a gun....and our soldiers will get the same ban...


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

excellent point 2AGUY , mag bans are the same as gun bans same as the latest attempt to ban ammo for the AR15 !!


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




sorry, that is a lie....I posted how they lied in their stats....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



Well the 1.6 million is a greatly inflated number for many reasons.  But of defenses how many are like the disaster created by the recent shooting with the disabled vet?  Two guys were having an argument and the pregnant woman was pushed down.  The vet came to be the hero and the two guys who were obviously friends turned on him.  He ended up shooting both of them, one who was the woman's boyfriend and possibly the father of the child.  Now these men are homeless so we know they aren't paying the hundreds of thousands in medical bills for this incident.  And the woman has said she thinks the vet shouldn't have shot.  So there are no winners in this, just a disaster with a big bill.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> excellent point 2AGUY , mag bans are the same as gun bans same as the latest attempt to ban ammo for the AR15 !!



If the manufacturer wants to keep selling the gun in the state they will come out with limited magazines.  Problem solved.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Here is how they lied....

Opinion Media cherry picks Missouri gun data to make misleading case for more control Fox News




> While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose 17 percent relative to the rest of the U.S. in the five years after 2007, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the previous five years. The question is why the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the United States at a *slower rate*after the change in the law than it did prior to it. Missouri was on an ominous path before the law was ended.



Simply looking at whether murder rates were higher after the law was rescinded than before misses much of what was going on. Most likely, getting rid of the law *slowed* the growth rate in murders.



And john lott directs to this study in the article....

What does Missouri show about the benefits from universal background checks Nothing really The forthcoming Journal of Urban Health study by the Bloomberg School of Public Health


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

Arizona Dry Creek 2003 , ---  dry creek arizona machine gun shoot - Bing Videos   ---  this is my favorite video of a machine gun shoot but there are others all over the USA Brian .  He11 , we have 2 - 4 locally every year advertised over local radio and held at a couple of ranges .


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




brain....you have no idea what was happening in that situation.......what they planned to do to that woman, or that vet......they could have been planning on killing her because he didn't want the baby...or they were high on meth and out of control.....please.....


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Mar 22, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Why the john hinkely story is a lie....and why you can't trust anti gunners in particular the brady campaign against gun violence....
> ...



  You sure about that? If you're convicted of a violent felony you never get those rights back in Texas or any other state.
   However a non violent  felon can own a firearm in Texas five years after completing his/her sentence but they cant take it out of the home.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > excellent point 2AGUY , mag bans are the same as gun bans same as the latest attempt to ban ammo for the AR15 !!
> ...




They can't just retrofit magazines for guns, they aren't designed that way....so now, law abiding citizens have legal products that they can't use, and will be criminals if they have magazines with more than 15 rounds in them....which happened in New Jersey...a guy had two magazines that had been legal, were made illegal, and now he is looking at a felony.....

gun magazine limits are gun bans by proxy......

And I for one will fight them with my money and support....


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

and , see , Brian just advertising his ultimate goal of complete government control !!   As he says , make the law and if maker want to sell the gun they will have to comply .  Same as the 'mark Kelly gabby giffords' gun control team and 'BFGRN' !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...



You DON'T HAVE ONE...so we are forced to rely on the 'honor' system. Maybe we could use the Boy Scout salute at gun shows?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > hey , like I said , he is a statist and a gun controller , taxpayers paid his and his families / parents wages for his entire life I suppose . He is a kings man with latest goal of Disarming Americans using his wife as a prop !!    You and others can worship him if you like but I have no use for him BFG !!   Brady gang reduced to one member that is losing steam so replacement is needed , 'ta da' meet the Kellys !!
> ...




They can't buy guns at gun shows...they have to get a background check........if there is a guy there who doesn't care he simply tells them...hey....meet me across the street...and then he sells the gun to the guy........so right there your background check law is fucking useless..........easily circumvented by any criminal, but it damages lawful gun sellers ability to sell a lawful product to law abiding citizens......because each background check takes time, and if they can't get it done in the weekend, then the seller and the buyer....both law abiding citizens lose out...

Again.....gun banning by proxy......

And I will fight it with my money and support......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

LOki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > LOki said:
> ...




and in legal jeapordy when they make simple mistakes because they make a mistake in interpreting the purpsefullly byzantine gun laws meant to entrap them and turn them into felons to intentionally scare other law abiding citizens from trying to buy a gun.....


That is the real purpose to all of these laws........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Most hits on background checks are false positives against law abiding citizens...also...the government has been caught closing down the system at least 6 days a month for no reason......it happened during clinton and is back under obama.....

Gun banning by proxy.......


----------



## LOki (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


What are you frothing about?

What is your actual problem with what I have actually said?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Like I said the pregnant woman didn't want them shot.  I think she knows much more than you.  And all the descriptions are that the men were fighting, not that she was being attacked.  She probably tried to break it up and got pushed down.  Regardless SHE didn't want them shot.

Woman Veteran who shot boyfriend pulled trigger too soon - Worldnews.com

"_The guy that walked up to us, why did he have to shoot?_"


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



You can make smaller capacity magazines for any gun.  Don't be silly.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that any assault rifle ban is silly.  They are seldom used in murders and when they are a semi auto handgun would have been just as effective but more concealable.
> ...



WOW, I guess you can make it all the way to General being afraid of how a weapon "looks"

*McChrystal: Assault Rifles Aren't for Civilians*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




How do you know large magazines have no role in personal protection...do you live in an isolated community...on the border, or have you been camping where there is no law enforcement...where you might need to hold off attackers till you can get clear......ask the 43 Mexican student teachers rounded up by the drug cartel if they needed guns and large capacity magazines........while the drug cartel in conjuction with the Mexican government official rounded them up...

What about the isolated land owner on the border...what if they run into drug cartel members running drugs or illegals...do you think a 6 shot revolver will be enough against heavily armed cartel assholes with fully automatic, illegal rifles (probably sold to them by eric holder and barak obama)

You do not have the right to disarm law abiding citizens because you don't like certain guns or pieces of equipment....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> Arizona Dry Creek 2003 , ---  dry creek arizona machine gun shoot - Bing Videos   ---  this is my favorite video of a machine gun shoot but there are others all over the USA Brian .  He11 , we have 2 - 4 locally every year advertised over local radio and held at a couple of ranges .



What a surprise, you refuse to answer.  Well you cannot go out an buy a brand new made in 2015 machine gun.  So yes you are limited.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Many in the military are statists....they have been raised since the age of 17 in a government organization that puts personal freedom behind the needs of the state.......and he works for us.......we tell him what he needs, not the other way around.......


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



The people using them are mass shooters and gang bangers. 
 A Killing Machine Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines Mother Jones


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > most of the USA can easily buy full capacity magazines Brian so I don't see any limitation in most of the USA on taxpayers !!
> ...




No...you can easily get all of those things in France, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark....and they all have more strict and absolute gun control than we do....dittos for Mexico.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that any assault rifle ban is silly.  They are seldom used in murders and when they are a semi auto handgun would have been just as effective but more concealable.
> ...




and a 15 round or 10 round magazine limit would make your legal gun outlawed and useless...since the odds the company will spend money to retool to retrofit your gun is small to non existent....you are now the victim of a gun ban by proxy......


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona Dry Creek 2003 , ---  dry creek arizona machine gun shoot - Bing Videos   ---  this is my favorite video of a machine gun shoot but there are others all over the USA Brian .  He11 , we have 2 - 4 locally every year advertised over local radio and held at a couple of ranges .
> ...


Unless it's a rimfire.  The 1938 law applies only to center fire cartridges.  Many make a hobby out of .22 LR automatic rifles.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Brain...you should stop using that stupid article...it says Half used those magazines...because they are standard magazines ( a deception by lying gun grabbers first of all) and the other half.....USED Something else.....so if you ban standard issue magazines.........the first half will also use something else.....so the problem will not be solved by your magazine/gun ban.....

What a stupid fucking article.....that only gun grabbers suck up and believe.....


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



That was disappointing to find out about General McCrystal, one of the few generals with the balls to stand up to this president.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Too many in the military see the order and regimentation of the military as the goal, and they are raised from early adulthood in a top down power system where the guy at the bottom must obey orders.....

There is no personal freedom in the military, and individuality must be sacrificed for the good of the whole...in the service of the government.....

But like I said.....he takes his orders from us....not the other way around.....if he gets a rifle with a standard 30 round magazine...we paid for it, we own it and if we want one as well.....screw him....he works for us......not the other way around.......


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



You are consistently proving my earlier point. We even have scientific proof...

*Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains*

http://www.alternet.org/story/149362/study:_conservatives_have_larger_'fear_centers'_in_their_brains


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And liberals have centers in their brain that tend toward killing people in their millions, in pursuit of perfecting the human condition...evidence......the 20th century.......


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Why? Because he has a conscience and is not afraid to state the obvious?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


The 1994 assault weapons ban cost Democrats control of congress.  Clearly banning guns is not "obvious" to most Americans.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You clearly don't know what you are parroting, do you? Liberals have NEVER been behind mass killings.


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Well this is what I think would happen if we put a ban on the sale of new hi cap magazine like we did previously.  And it would take a lot of years for it to have any real effect but would be a step in the right direction.  New sales would have mags with a limited magazine.  The value of the magazines that hold more would skyrocket and would eventually get hoarded up by the gun nuts.  As they become less easy to get the gang bangers won't have them as they don't need them to rob someone.  They use them now because they are the norm.  And it seems like the majority of mass shooters just run to the store and get a gun.  I doubt they will go through the effort of trying to get higher capacity magazines.  And if they do well I'd rather they have to go through more effort.




3D printing will allow and criminals to get all the hi-cap magazines that they want...because there will be a profit in it.  Unless we are going to outlaw springs.

And I don't think reducing the amount of rounds a gangbanger can put in his gun is going to reduce the number of bullets that he or she shoots.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Oh, so assault weapons are fine on the streets and particularly around the schools in America


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




In the hands of law abiding citizens yes....of course...since they aren't the ones using them to commit crimes.......and since they are used less frequently to commit murder than bare hands and feet.....the CDC statistics show this....should bare hands and feet be banned from schools...since they kill more people than assault weapons every year..?they are far more dangerous to public safety since they kill more people than assault rifles....right?

if that is your criteria for banning things on the streets and in schools...right?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

I have posted a poll on gun legislation to see where we can agree on gun safety.....anti and pro should try to look at it...it may help us see where we agree...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Just because you don't trust yourself with one doesn't mean it applies to everyone else.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And how exactly would any of that have averted Newtown,  or Virginia Tech,  or the Navy Yard,  or California Virgin?

I'd support universal background checks of gun buyers...with no record whatsoever of what they buy.  Win/win...no backdoor registration and you get universal background checks.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

MCCRYSTAL is statist , he knows who butters his bread !!


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...




Evan between family members...or between friends....when it is known neither part is a felon.....

How,about when you and your wife are not felons.....you buy a gun....both are legally able to carry a weapon in public...she is going out with her friends....should you be allowed to lend her your gun for the evening....without going to the gun store for a background check.......

We know how gun grabbers think and how they trap " common sense" gun laws...if you aren't careful in what you support....if your wife is stopped and found with that gun....she could be arrested as a felon...and you too....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



I think easily is a great exaggeration.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



It shows how many killers use magazines larger than 10 rounds.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is what I think would happen if we put a ban on the sale of new hi cap magazine like we did previously.  And it would take a lot of years for it to have any real effect but would be a step in the right direction.  New sales would have mags with a limited magazine.  The value of the magazines that hold more would skyrocket and would eventually get hoarded up by the gun nuts.  As they become less easy to get the gang bangers won't have them as they don't need them to rob someone.  They use them now because they are the norm.  And it seems like the majority of mass shooters just run to the store and get a gun.  I doubt they will go through the effort of trying to get higher capacity magazines.  And if they do well I'd rather they have to go through more effort.
> ...



3D printers are extremely expensive.  And why would a gang banger bother?  You can hold up a bank with a derringer.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



It seems to me that I shouldn't have to go through it every time I buy a gun, transfer it, or anything else. Having to prove I'm not a felon is wrong because that burden of proof should be on the government to prove I am one.  I think that showing an ID should be the only requirement, and if the government can't prove you are ineligible to buy a gun, then it can't stop you.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Brain in France, one of the guys was on a convicted criminal, he and his brother were on a government terrorist watch list..they crossed an international border,twice, and bought the guns in a foreign country with strict gun control laws...as strict as France...come on.......

Not to mention the masked gunmen a week later who shot up the Marseilles neighborhood, just before the French Prime minister was going to make a speech about crime reduction in the neighborhood, and they also used fully automatic weapons....

And dittos for the two gunmen in Sweden last week shooting up the coffee shop.....suspected gang warfare...with fully automatic weapons....

Europe is awash in illegal, easily acquired, fully automatic weapons......


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

well , I haven't bought an AR for awhile but last time I bought I think it came with a 10 and 20 round magazine .   My m1a came with one 20 rounder and a 5 rounder for hunting and extra 20 rounders  available from Springfield or the gun show for about 50 last time I bought some .    20 round new made Colt mags for 25 dollars a few years back and Bushmaster for 20 .   Magazines are no problem as far as I know .  New Ruger 25 round [think they are] .22 magazines for the '10-22' are cheap enough , available at a gun store , gun show or from Ruger   Brian .


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > and Felons , well you guys release them at taxpayer expense back into society instead of keeping them locked up and even though I have no use for drug users even a nonviolent  marijuana guy can be a felon . So yeah , in the case of a nonviolent person called felon when he has done his time , paid his debt and is released into society I'd like to see him released with full RIGHTS restored and with no trail so he can maybe get a job !!    Violent felons of course should be locked up forever BFG and Brian !!
> ...



I was wondering about that, too. I can't remember the last time I went down to the prison and opened the gate for any prisoner.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I didn't say it can't happen.  But you have to do a lot more to prove it is EASY.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

if you support the statists both you and Brian are letting violent criminals back on the streets as far as I'm concerned 'VS'  !!


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Large capacity magazines are expensive.  And so are the guns that accept them.

A Cobra derringer can be had for $130.

A 3D printer costs about the same as a good AR-15.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



It does look like the pricing has come down since the last time I checked.  But the law would put huge jail time on anyone caught manufacturing.  So again, why would they bother when they can commit crimes with the smaller capacity magazines?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Wow! You live in a world of "gun grabbers" who are out to trap you "law abiding citizens", and arrest your wife for carrying a gun (and you, too). Of course, background checks are only a tool of the government to target you as the next gun confiscation. Is there anything or anyone who is not in on the plot to get you and your wife? Is there an agent hiding under your bed just waiting to bulldoze your house and set fire to it? Are you sure that the folks next door are not government plants, there just to keep an eye on you? Heard any mysterious clicks on the telephone when you are talking to friends?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




One, they would use whatever magazine they thought would get the job done, legal or illegal.....but still illegal for them any way since they are criminals.....yet innocent people will be caught and turned into felons...it has already happened and it didn't stop the mass shooting in California, or Columbine...they both used 10 round magazines....so it is a pointless law meant to entrap honest, law abiding people in simple mistakes....and turning them into felons and taking away their rights forever....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Innocent people will only be caught and turned into felons if they choose to manufacture them after the law is put in place.  And nobody is saying they will stop shootings, but it will save lives.  The giffords shooter was stopped when he had to reload.  I'd prefer he was stopped at 10 rather than 18.  Physics says reloading will slow the shooter and that gives innocent people a chance to run away.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



More right wing lies...

*What's the Matter With Missouri's Murder Rate?*

For decades, Missouri required a permit to purchase a handgun, even from a private seller. (Under federal law, licensed dealers must conduct background checks but private sellers don't have to.) In 2007 the law was repealed -- causing a rash of murders, according to a *forthcoming study* we featured in White Papers & Research today:

The study [from researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research], to be published in a forthcoming issue of Journal of Urban Health, finds that the law's repeal was associated with an additional 55 to 63 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012. State-level murder data for the time period 1999-2012 were collected and analyzed from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. The analyses controlled for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime.

Here's some FBI data I *pulled* myself:






It's normal for crime stats to fluctuate here and there, but Missouri has had five straight years of abnormally high murder rates while the nation's rate has been declining.

The forthcoming study reports that states bordering Missouri didn't experience anything like this; in a similar exercise, I tried ranking all the states by murder rate as of 2006 (the year before the law's repeal) and then comparing Missouri with the two states that straddled it on the list. Illinois wasn't too far off and borders Missouri, so I included it too. I got a similar result -- starting in 2008, Missouri's rate was noticeably and consistently high:


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Yeah...already shown to be a lie....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And then there is the truth, and reality, and facts....


While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose 17 percent relative to the rest of the U.S. in the five years after 2007, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the previous five years. The question is why the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the United States at a *slower rate*after the change in the law than it did prior to it. Missouri was on an ominous path before the law was ended.

Simply looking at whether murder rates were higher after the law was rescinded than before misses much of what was going on. Most likely, getting rid of the law *slowed* the growth rate in murders.

But there are other reasons not to accept the conclusion touted by the press.


 There are currently 17 states with these background check laws, down from a peak of 19 states. Missouri is just one of them.
 If you are going to insist on looking at just one state, Missouri adopted the law in 1981 and rescinded it in 2007. Why not test if the murder rate fell after 1981 and whether it increased after 2007?
 Why only look at just the murder rate for this one state? Why not the overall violent crime or robbery rates?
The reason for this cherry picking is obvious. Only those conditions produced the desired results. For example, Missouri’s violent crime rate fell 7 percent faster than the violent crime rate for the rest of the United States from 2006 to 2012.

Researchers should not cherry pick one state to examine. Consider the following. You flip a coin 20 times — ten heads and ten tails. If you specifically picked just five heads, you might well conclude the coin was biased. Since most readers don’t know the data, researchers need to make clear why they are only examining a small portion of the total sample.

There is already ample research on these universal background checks across*all* the states. Indeed, the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided one study on this, and, unlike the Webster study, it shows no reduction in murder rates from these expanded background checks. Indeed, there was even a slight 2 percent increase in murder rates, but the result was not statistically significant.

For those interested, a discussion of the other problems with Webster’s study is available here.

If one wants to look at the impact of licensing, again there is national research, again such as More Guns, Less Crime, on all sorts of licensing rules from licenses to carry a gun to licenses to own one.

 For example, if you wanted to look at what happened in one state where murder and robbery rates soared after gun licensing was imposed, look at the disaster that happened in Massachusetts.

It is presumably too much to hope that reporters will understand empirical work.

 But alarm bells should always go off when only one example is studied when many places have adopted the same types of laws. Reporters should always ask themselves why that one state was examined. Why didn't the researcher even look at what happened when the law was adopted?

Unfortunately, the Webster study isn't alone. There have been a rash of recent news stories on other misleading studies funded by Michael Bloomberg as well as on the risks of guns in the home.

And again.....



>  There are currently 17 states with these background check laws, down from a peak of 19 states. Missouri is just one of them.





>  If you are going to insist on looking at just one state, Missouri adopted the law in 1981 and rescinded it in 2007. Why not test if the murder rate fell after 1981 and whether it increased after 2007?



And the most important point and the reason not to trust the anti gunners....





>  Why only look at just the murder rate for this one state? Why not the overall violent crime or robbery rates?





> The reason for this cherry picking is obvious. Only those conditions produced the desired results. For example, Missouri’s violent crime rate fell 7 percent faster than the violent crime rate for the rest of the United States from 2006 to 2012.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

And one last time.....never trust anti gunners and their statistics...their fear makes them lie.....



>  Why only look at just the murder rate for this one state? Why not the overall violent crime or robbery rates?
> The reason for this cherry picking is obvious. Only those conditions produced the desired results. For example, Missouri’s violent crime rate fell 7 percent faster than the violent crime rate for the rest of the United States from 2006 to 2012.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)




----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> and Felons , well you guys release them at taxpayer expense back into society instead of keeping them locked up and even though I have no use for drug users even a nonviolent  marijuana guy can be a felon . So yeah , in the case of a nonviolent person called felon when he has done his time , paid his debt and is released into society I'd like to see him released with full RIGHTS restored and with no trail so he can maybe get a job !!    Violent felons of course should be locked up forever BFG and Brian !!



I agree.  Once a non-violent felon has served his or her time, that should not be able to follow them around for the rest of their lives.  That is like being punished over and over again for the same crime.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


>



That is funny.  You realize that the US is about 316 million people and Israel 8 million right?  So taking that into account the number of deaths are pretty much the same.  One for every million people.  Whoever made that up gets the dumb award for the day.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Regardless, people who want to kill a bunch of people are going to go to gun free zones.  They are NOT going to go to a place where there are armed people because then they wouldn't be able to kill as many people.  Common sense.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Places like where most people work?  Most corporations don't allow employees to carry.  Those are probably the biggest gun free zones in the country.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Some corporations DO have armed guards.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I'm not aware of any.  Which ones?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Military bases have armed guards.  That didn't stop shooters.  If you are really serious about this no gun free zone thing you need to go after the big corporations.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



A lot of them do.  Have you never heard of security guards?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



No, I don't have to go AFTER anyone.  This is a FREE country.  If you want to be armed, you should have that right.  If you do not, then you don't have to.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Yes I haven't seen armed ones.  Which ones?


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

doesn't really matter Brian , corporations are private property . USA is the 'public property' or taxpayers property and is owned by the people rather than the government .


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Ah you aren't very serious about this then.  Or you only go after places that don't fund the Republicans.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> doesn't relly matter Brian , corporations are private property . USA is the 'public property' or taxpayers property and is owned by the people rather than the government .



I don't think you should go after them.  But if you were really as serious about it as you pretend you would be.  Way more people are disarmed at work than any other gun free zone.  I don't think you guys are very serious about this.  That is the BIG gun free zone.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



I don't go "after" anyone.  I've got no idea what you are talking about.  

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose.  It is a CHOICE, get it yet?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > doesn't relly matter Brian , corporations are private property . USA is the 'public property' or taxpayers property and is owned by the people rather than the government .
> ...



If I'm serious about what?  Why don't you quit making delusional posts.    The more you talk, the more idiotic you sound.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed?  I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

like I said CORPORATIONS are Private property , if an employee doesn't like the rules on private property he can walk away or try to change the rules. Private property is much different than taxpayer owned public property Brian !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Sure.  I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't be able to carry to work, and I'm sure that some do.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> like I said CORPORATIONS are Private property , if an employee doesn't like the rules on private property he can walk away or try to change the rules. Private property is much different than taxpayer owned public property Brian !!



I suppose you have a point there too.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



There are not "a LOT" of shootings at workplaces.  Sorry, but you are wrong.  It is actually a relatively VERY rare occurrence here in the US.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

employees can try to change the Private property owner smind Brian !!


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Some corporations and businesses that deal with precious materials have armed security guards as well as metal detectors.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



How is that possible?  You said shootings occur in gun free zones.  These are the biggest gun free zones and you say there is a low occurrence of shootings?  Well that makes your statement about gun free zones seem silly.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

pismoe said:


> employees can try to change the Private property owner smind Brian !!



It is a right.  Why should they have to?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Not at all.  They do occur but not often.  What are you having a difficult time with?  It's certainly a simple concept.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

thing is that banks used to have guns in the drawer of the bank manager , its up to the bank I think but was common at one time .  Same for the POST OFFICE but they went gun free sometime in the 60s I think , anyone remember the saying about 'going postal' .   Shopkeepers were catered to by the gunmakers as they made short barrel 'shop keeper ' models of guns , mostly revolvers .


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Sorry to inform you, but the ONLY one who is "silly" here is yourself.  You are ridiculously transparent.  Hope you don't think you're fooling anyone with your ridiculous posts.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

silly statement Brian but I'll answer .  Private Property , the owner has his say .  Even now one of the questions from one of the gun control boneheads was , can store owners in Texas ban open carriers in their stores , answer is , yes they can simply by posting their anti gun , no guns allowed signs .  If they can afford the money loss from being anti gun then all is cool Brian .


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Regardless, people who want to kill a bunch of people are going to go to gun free zones.  They are NOT going to go to a place where there are armed people because then they wouldn't be able to kill as many people.  Common sense.


When was the last mass shooting at a gun show?
Marksmanship competition?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Yeah...already shown to be a lie....



Says a guy paid by one of the biggest gun manufacturers...want to buy a bridge?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Here is the chart FROM YOUR SITE:


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Here is the chart FROM YOUR SITE:


Looks like the murder rate shot up from 1.1 to 1.2. 

Time to rethink this!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 22, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the chart FROM YOUR SITE:
> ...



Yea, 17% which even the liar John Lott doesn't dispute. Cherry picker extraordinaire

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby s Favorite Academic A Lott of Lies Armed With Reason


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Actually, the two Fort Hood shooters targeted the areas of Fort Hood where the soldiers were unarmed.....they weren't stopped until the Military Police showed up with guns......


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Well if gun free zones are magnets for mass shooters, why do they not occur often?  Your claim seems to be false.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Are the military police not armed guards?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> > doesn't relly matter Brian , corporations are private property . USA is the 'public property' or taxpayers property and is owned by the people rather than the government .
> ...




I don't think you should be disarmed at work....depending on the job and the safety requirements of the job.....for example...the Dr. at the hospital....the hospital was a gun free zone but he broke that rule and brought a gun to his work place.....and a killer also brought a gun to that work place gun free zone...and the Doctor..who brought a gun to his work place stopped him....dittos the construction company owner who brought a gun to his workplace when the guy came back to kill people...dittos the work place owner when the muslim came back to work and cut the womans head off and the owner, who brought his gun to his work place and shot the guy....dittos the Minister who brought the gun to his work place, during a meeting and when the janitor they fired came in and tried shooting people, the minister, who brought a gun to his work place shot and stopped him....dittos the city councilman..who had a gun with him at his work place during a meeting when a disgruntled guy got into a gun fight with the police in the lobby of the building, you saw the video of this councilman who brought a gun to work draw it and protect his fellow councilmen until it was safe....

You mean like those cases of people bringing guns to their work places....?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Yes they should...if you can't violate civil rights in other areas in a work place you shouldn't violate the right to self defense....however...you don't have a right to freedom of speech at work...so you could make an argument that you wouldn't have a right to 2nd amendment protection either.......


----------



## Hemiman (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


>


Without a cartoon to depend on some people wouldn't have an opinion.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > pismoe said:
> ...



I mean the workplace is the largest gun free zones in the country.  Why aren't you going after corporations?   

I do find it funny you mention the minister since the concealed carry armed janitor would be one used to argue against armed employees.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Well obviously I think employers have the right to have no firearms.  But you guys really should be going after them.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




They weren't at the location at the time the shooting started...Fort Hood is like a small city....lots of areas where soldiers are unarmed and unprotected by police...

For example....I went to Fort Benning, home of the infantry is a land mass of 5 counties...3 in Georgia and 2 in Alabama....or vice versa....so there are lot's of places without police protection on the Fort grounds....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




He was breaking the law at the time...he was a criminal...the minister wasn't and he was at his place of work....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

And if gun free zones are killing zones why is there relatively few shootings at work according to ChrisL?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



That would be the case anywhere with armed guards.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




As I pointed out, the First Amendment has no guarantee at your place of work...so that would likely be the outcome at the Supreme court for the 2nd at work.......and again...that would be because it is private, not public property...

However, public buildings should be required to respect the 2nd amendment....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Yes he was a concealed carry criminal.  When he got fired he pulled that gun and started shooting.  This is why employers don't want armed employees.  The minister won this time because the janitor missed.  A few more trips to the range and it might be a dead minister instead...


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



And a reason to carry at work.........even in the military....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



So if gun free zones are killing zones why are there not more work related shootings?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I've never had a chance to look into it.  Did the military have lots of shootings which brought about the rule?  Something must have triggered it.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> And if gun free zones are killing zones why is there relatively few shootings at work according to ChrisL?




Actually, there are a lot of killings at places of work...that is where most people come into conflict...and mother jones tried to show that killers do not target gun free zones because these guys do target schools where they go, and job sites where they work...

But again, since they are anti gunners, they are wrong....of the killers with no connection to their target sites, they specifically targeted places that were gun free zones...in fact, even in Canada, the guy who attacked their parliament made fun of gun free zones on his facebook page before the attack....


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > And if gun free zones are killing zones why is there relatively few shootings at work according to ChrisL?
> ...



Well what the heck, ChrisL was wrong?  Impossible.  I'm sure she will tell you that you are wrong and a liar and call you names.  That's what she would do to me.

The parliament guy was shot at and stopped rather fast.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




I think the first Bush implemented it, and clinton reinforced it.....a mistake in both their parts......since they trust soldiers to at the age of 17 to carry military grade rifles, with 30 round magazines, full sized handguns, and fully automatic heavy machine guns and 20mm grenade launchers...and yet can't carry a pistol when they get home to protect themselves from criminals and terrorists....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Because he attacked a building....with armed security...unlike our schools......that is why he was stopped so fast...too bad Sandy Hook didn't have armed people right there......right?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I tend to think like you on that one.  But I haven't researched and there had to be something that brought it about.  So I can't state my opinion on that one for sure till I learn more.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Some schools do have armed security.  I might agree to a few armed people in schools if they had smart guns.  Now I would agree to having a police officer in every school during the day.  It would be money much better spent than all the money wasted in foreign aid.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

there are probably armed guards at the school that mrobamas kids go as well as armed guards when mrobamas kids go to the beach or a concert . Bet that none of them carry Smart gun nor will they when they become widely available !!


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Gotta go....


pismoe said:


> there are probably armed guards at the school that mrobamas kids go as well as armed guards when mrobamas kids go to the beach or a concert . Bet that none of them carry Smart gun nor will they when they become widely available !!



heavily armed men and women surround obama's kids and wife...24/7.. Which is appropriate since they are high value targets.......but the female nurse coming home after the late shift at the hospital deserves to protect herself....right?  With her own brand of heavily armed security....herself with a pistol...right...?  if that nurse pays for obama's family to have that protection....why shouldn't the nurse have it as well?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




the era,of the Reagan shooting probably started it, it was also the time of the first assault weapon ban...I think?..


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 22, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



A Lott of lies. Whoa, clever! Tell us how the genius supports this:

*Lott replied to this accusation by arguing that, even if there weren’t more households owning guns, there were still more people carrying guns in public after the passage of shall-issue laws. However, we know this assertion is factually untenable, based on surveys showing that 5-11% of US adults already carried guns for self-protection before the implementation of concealed carry laws.*


....so, he believes Lott lied because he believes just as many carried weapons after permits were issued more liberally by shall issue than prior to the laws? He supports this...how? With a poll on people who admit to their previous felonies by carrying a hand gun illegally? And you bought that? I read on a bit more and it's obvious he's a cvnt trying to impose his will on a target audience by a series of condescending remarks, rather than statistical facts. 

The fact is that shall issue permits have been on the increase and crime has gone down. And the author didn't understand that Lott didn't make the claim that shall issue was reponsible for all crime going down but that it flies in the face of the liberal fear mongers that claim more guns mean more crime. It doesn't.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Hmmm...seems like guns on post were banned as far back as the Nixon era....

Bearing ArmsFORT HOOD FALLOUT The Ban On Military Personnel Carrying Weapons On Duty Isn t New... And It Isn t Right. - Bearing Arms


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher...as well as an economist, shows that whatever they try to say, his explanations were solid.....and they can't stand that...and they really hate him because his work, which examined crime statistics in every county in the United States was the most detailed work on the subject of gun self defense and crime rates.....

He showed that as concealed carry laws went into effect...violent crime rates dropped...

How do we know his research was accurate........right now...with more guns in private hands, our gun crime rate is going down, not up, overall crime rate is going down, not up...and as a side benefit to all the new gun owners learning about guns....our gun accident rate and our gun accident death rate are going down, not up....

And we didn't ban guns to achieve those results.....in fact...we own and carry more guns than before....


The anti-gun nuts will never forgive him for showing that....


----------



## pismoe (Mar 22, 2015)

agreed about mrobamas kids but I dislike the 'high' value placed on them by many people when compared to the nurse .  Nurse is willing to protect herself and shouldn't have gov roadblocks placed in her way .   ---------   Different topic but you see media recognizing the elites special status on the news when the gov spokes chick ptsaki  talks about hllary as if she is Special and doesn't always follow the rules but that's ok .


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



He started with a 33 round magazine and reloaded after it was exhausted.  The only reason it gave people time to react is because he dropped the new magazine on the ground, an unplanned impediment. When I was carrying a service weapon, our reload times were tested.  After my gun went dry, I was able to reload in just under 4 seconds.  Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

I agree.....both the obamas and that nurse should be protected....but the obamas only want that level of safety for themselves........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Have you seen the video about how long it takes people to change magazines.....they showed a trained individual and an untrained individual and the difference was almost non existent....and then they showed using 6 revolvers and simply dropping them and pulling the next one...no difference in the amount of killing time....

thanks for the post...


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now.  Even when gun ownership was clearly declining.  I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen.  I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates.  If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine.  That is the point.  4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Is that the one where they have the magazines nicely laid out on barrels in front of them?  When has a mass shooter ever brought a barrel with?  Obviously you have seen the videos I have shared of failed reloads.  Anyone who shoots and has tried quick reloads makes mistakes sometimes.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Didn't help in Sandy Hook, those stories you tell aren't even true.....he dropped the magazine and reloaded several times, before he ran out of ammo, and he killed 26 people.....those stories, as I pointed out are not accurate and no one knows how they started...remember....everyone was running away or hiding and they weren't looking to go and see what the killer was doing...the police "assume" people escaped when he reloaded, but there is no confirmation of that.....

And the Long Island shooter on the train, Massad Ayoob points out he more than likely completely ran out of ammo before he was rushed...since he too reloaded on the crowded, enclosed train.....


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



You're full of shit.  Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Just the one...and I pointed out that it is far easier to change magazines when they are actually on your belt or chest than they are on a barrel where you have to fumble for them...so again....your point is wrong....it takes less time in the real world....


----------



## MaryL (Mar 22, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Ever had someone point a gun at YOU? I have. Wasn't a nice feeling. By  a relative, he wanted to  SHOOT me...because I was pouring his booze down the sink...He later died, and cancer wasn't  scared of  guns. My  da passed away from lung cancer from smoking ....Cancer .


Rarely now do I  read about someone defending themselves with firearms, almost always it's someone abusing the right. Columbine High or Sandy hook, shooters all. I really do think we need to reexamine the second Amendment. It just isn't working out the way our founding fathers  hoped or predicted.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




But....but.....the lefties know there are only 2 people buying all those guns.....because they said so........everyone else sold their guns....to those guys too.......


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine.  That is the point.  4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.



Unless the shooter chains the doors shut,  like Cho did at Virginia Tech.

Or they are driving around shooting people,  like California Virgin guy.

Columbine guys found a friend,  one could shoot while the other reloaded.

This is why gun control is never going to work.  Criminals aren't stupid...even the crazy ones.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Yes it did help.  Kids did escape.  And it helps in every mass shooting.  They all have survivors who ran away and escaped.  Slowing the shooter allows more to escape.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

MaryL said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Ever had someone point a gun at YOU? I have. Wasn't a nice feeling. By  a relative, he wanted to  SHOOT me...because I was pouring his booze down the sink...He later died, and cancer wasn't  scared of  guns. My  da passed away from lung cancer from smoking ....Cancer .
> ...




Go to "thearmedcitizen" or "gunssavelives"...that site has an incident list based on both states where they occur and by type of gun used......try it....you will see just a small sample of actual Americans stopping or preventing violent criminal attacks with guns.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...




exactly....and they learn from the nuts who went before.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Sorry brain...those stories are not true.....the cops said they "assumed" that people got away when he reloaded multiple times  but no one in the building actually said it.....since in a grade school there are few adults and he stayed in the kindergarten area.......no eyewitnesses reported it brain......


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



That is sales, not ownership.  Every gun owner I know has quite a few.  Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has.  Also several polls support ownership being down.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

I will find that link when I get back......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 22, 2015)

Here you go brain...again...

Sandy Hook Shooter s Pause May Have Aided Students Escape - tribunedigital-thecourant



Based on initial statements from surviving children and the fact that unfired bullets from Lanza's rifle were found on the ground, *detectives suspect *that some students were able to run to safety when Lanza stopped firing, probably for a short period of time, the officials said.

*It is possible *that Lanza, who reloaded the rifle frequently, mishandled or dropped a magazine and unfired bullets fell to the floor, they said.

But it also is possible, they said, that the mechanism that fed bullets into the rifle jammed, causing Lanza to remove the magazine and clear the weapon. Unfired bullets could have fallen to the classroom floor during that process as well, law enforcement officials said.


The authorities have learned generally from the children who ran away that *something may *have happened to Lanza's rifle that caused him to stop firing. The substance of the statements, which are not entirely consistent, is that a piece of the weapon, probably a magazine holding live bullets, was dropped or fell to the classroom floor.

Investigators have decided not to formally interview the children, based on advice from Yale child psychologists. Given the chaotic nature of the scene, it is also possible that some children escaped while Lanza was shooting others in the room.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I have seen an eyewitness account.  And like I said people escape every mass shooting.  Slowing down the shooter will only help more escape.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine.  That is the point.  4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.
> ...



People escaped all of those.  Slowing the shooter is always good.  What are the negatives to a mass shooter having to reload often?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Putting a hyde in his melon would slow him down even better.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> It does look like the pricing [of a 3D printer] has come down since the last time I checked.  But the law would put huge jail time on anyone caught manufacturing.  So again, why would they bother when they can commit crimes with the smaller capacity magazines?



Sorry I missed this one...I'm getting a lot of alerts from this thread from the long quote strings.

There's huge jail time on a lot of things criminals do...that doesn't seem to stop them.

If you are committing a robbery,  or a driveby,  or whatever...is the jailtime of the 30 round magazine really that big of a consideration...hell,  they're criminals,  they know that little crap is run concurrent if they get caught anyway,  so the real question is...why not?

And just like drugs,  if there is a black market profit in it,  someone is going to be manufacturing them.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Neither happen frequently.  School shootings and the like, and work place shootings are relatively rare.  Like I told you, these types of mass shootings make up less than 1% of ALL homicides.  

This is how we KNOW you are full of it.  IF you people cared about "deaths" then you would be outraged by the number of drownings every year and demand that swimming be banned, or demand that all people have a special license in order to swim, or some such bullshit.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




I wouldn't trust the polls.  People are getting a little paranoid,  with all the govenment spying going on.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Wasn't Virginia Tech the worst ever?

And he had handguns with mostly 10 round magazines.

Kinda blows that theory out of the water.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Wrong again.  The number of people purchasing and carrying guns, as indicated by the skyrocketing CCW issue rate, tells the real stories.  It isn't the same people buying more guns, it's more people buying guns to carry, which is why in the chart I provided, the rate of handgun manufacture tripled.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



If you really cared about peoples right to defend themselves you would be demanding corporations allow employees to carry.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Wrong.  Concealed carry is becoming legal in more states.  Those are people who have always been gun owners, just now they can carry.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Corporations should be subject to class action when they create a gun free zone and leave their workers defenseless to a crazed gunman.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



No it shows that it could have been worse.  And again what are the negatives to a mass shooter having to reload often?  He might drop a magazine?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Handgun manufacture tripled!  Are you stupid or just a little slow? More people are deciding to buy and carry guns, why are you threatened by the facts?


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.


----------



## Brain357 (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Again everyone I know has a lot of guns.  Sales do not show ownership.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


 

Because they're harder to insure.  Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system.  Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




^^^^ Voted STUPIDEST statement made in this entire thread.  Your award certificate is in the mail.


----------



## jillian (Mar 22, 2015)

tinydancer said:


> Whoa! Amazing quote from that bitch Shiva. I am very female and trust me I never have needed a penis extender in my life. Unreal. But obviously I must be a mutant according to her because I love guns.



yes... you always use very feminie language.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



No, self defense is a CHOICE.  Unlike people like you gun banners, us libertarians don't like to force people to do things they don't want to do.


----------



## jillian (Mar 22, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



maybe you know only a narrow group of people.

yea... i think that's probably it.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Get used to this kind of stupidity if you are going to converse with brainless.


----------



## Missourian (Mar 22, 2015)

jillian said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...




Hello Miss Jillian,  good to see you.


----------



## jillian (Mar 22, 2015)

> Hello Miss Jillian,  good to see you.



Hi Missourian. Always good to see you.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 22, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Yeah, because of a crime and criminal problem.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh?  That's real smart.  I can see you've given this some thought .  . .  Lol.  That was sarcasm, of course.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

Hemiman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Without reading this thread and others, ignorance is the escape...


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Lott replied with an ever-weakening series of explanations, suggesting that the 1% of people who obtained permits likely had a higher risk of being involved in crime, and thus disproportionately accounted for the crime decrease. Except, yet again, this statement does not comport with reality. One study by Hood and Neeley analyzed permit data in Dallas and showed the opposite of Lott’s predictions: zip codes with the highest violent crime before Texas passed its concealed carry law had the smallest number of new permits issued per capita.

Empirical data from Dade county police records, which cataloged arrest and non-arrests incidents for permit holders in a five-year period, also disproves Lott’s point. This data showed unequivocally that *defensive gun use by permit holders is extremely rare*. In Dade county, for example, there were only 12 incidents of a concealed carry permit owner encountering a criminal, compared with 100,000 violent crimes occurring in that period. That means, at most, getting a permit increases the risk of an armed civilian meeting a criminal by .012 percentage points. This is essentially a round-off error. What’s particularly revealing about this episode is that Lott had to have known about Dade county police records because he cited the exact same study in his book when the records supported a separate position of his. In other words, Lott simply cherry-picked the evidence that supported his conclusion and disregarded the rest. Even academics on Lott’s side of the argument strongly doubt that concealed carry laws could have such profound effects on crime. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, for example, writes:


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.



Really?

*Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload*

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


* Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man *
* Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter *


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

*That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.*

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher



Respect is EARNED.

Lott's book received glowing praise from one Mary Rosh...who is Mary Rosh?

Why it is none other than JOHN LOTT impersonating one Mary Rosh...

A most respectable thing to do, don't you THINK 2aguy?

*John R. Lott Can’t Defend Himself*

You probably don’t know who John Lott is, but he has been written about a lot recently. To make a long story short, John R. Lott Jr. is an unabashed gun advocate, best known for his book _“More Guns, Less Crime”_ wherein the data he uses has been long disputed. For extra fun? John Lott is also completely incapable of defending himself against his own history.

Lott’s excuses are that the original figures he used were lost in a computer crash; there are no financial records of the study, even though he personally funded it; he did a similar smaller study which he says vindicates the non-existent one, regardless that there’s no way to compare the originals; and that anyone who wants to prove him wrong can just go ahead and do the survey themselves, never mind that the very methodology of same is a major issue in question.

It has even long been illustrated how Lott has falsified his data. So Lott’s excuses are empty and meaningless. He has never been able to dismiss his past, but can only attempt to obfuscate it. Additionally, John Lott invented a sock puppet persona, “Mary Rosh,” which he used to praise his own work effusively and attack other scholars and critics. This is something Lott has admitted to doing, this is not an allegation.

John Lott’s fall from grace was seemingly complete in 2003-2004. His data was revealed as unprovable and he was outed as Mary Rosh. But here he is, ten years later, making regular television appearances as an NRA mouthpiece, downplaying the dangers of unfettered availability of firearms every time there is a mass shooting. As a bonus, he advances conservative talking points on other issues as well, attacking the ACA regularly.

Meanwhile, figures cited from “_More Guns, Less Crime_” have become the cornerstone of gun lobby arguments. Think about that. The statistics used for NRA talking points cannot be proven as true. John R. Lott is the chink in the armor of the gun lobbies. Were this story to get picked up by bigger media, it would end him.

John Lott reacts quickly to challenges regarding his troubled history and has standard responses at the ready. Most, if not all, of Lott’s links posted as a defense lead back to his own site or his organization’s site, Crime Prevention Research Center, which he is president of. He is also quick to link to those with whom he has worked in collusion. Simply put, John Lott’s responses boil down to that his data is true because he says so. Or, “Nuh-UH!”

This writer has had several interactions with him, and Lott has proven to be an evasive and underwhelming debate opponent. Each time, he links to his own site to counter questions about his history, or pivots, or employs accusatory rhetoric, or all of the above.

more


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.


I only read the beginning because I'm not going to spend the day reading an article simply because you lazily threw the link out there. Only a dishonest asshole like you thinks that's a reasonable thing to do. You pick the portion you feel supports you case the best and post that with the link if you are wanting to discuss the matter.

It's retarded to think someone is going to spend their energy reading every page of every link someone posts. The only other possibility is that they think they have overwhelmed them with "evidence" and shuts them down. So you're a dishonest idiot.



> Lott replied with an ever-weakening series of explanations


That's exactly what I was referring to. A scholarly approach would have cited what he felt was in error while this cvnt tries to use emotion to buttress his case. That only works on the weak minded. 


> , suggesting that the 1% of people who obtained permits likely had a higher risk of being involved in crime, and thus disproportionately accounted for the crime decrease. Except, yet again, this statement does not comport with reality. One study by Hood and Neeley analyzed permit data in Dallas and showed the opposite of Lott’s predictions: zip codes with the highest violent crime before Texas passed its concealed carry law had the smallest number of new permits issued per capita.


Where specifically does Lott "suggest" that 1% of new permit holders were at a higher risk of crimes? That's an assertion he didn't support. First, you cite the specifics, then you show specifically where it's wrong. Suggestion, implication, etc. are conclusions. So he's arguing with conclusions, not statements. Honest people call that a strawman argument and only a weak position needs to utilize it.

What exactly does it prove with lower permits issued in a zip code? That doesn't mean anything in particular to Lott's argument. 



> Empirical data





> from Dade county police records, which cataloged arrest and non-arrests incidents for permit holders in a five-year period, also disproves Lott’s point. This data showed unequivocally that *defensive gun use by permit holders is extremely rare*. In Dade county, for example, there were only 12 incidents of a concealed carry permit owner encountering a criminal, compared with 100,000 violent crimes occurring in that period. That means, at most, getting a permit increases the risk of an armed civilian meeting a criminal by .012 percentage points. This is essentially a round-off error. What’s particularly revealing about this episode is that Lott had to have known about Dade county police records because he cited the exact same study in his book when the records supported a separate position of his. In other words, Lott simply cherry-picked the evidence that supported his conclusion and disregarded the rest. Even academics on Lott’s side of the argument strongly doubt that concealed carry laws could have such profound effects on crime. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, for example, writes


Getting a concealed permit doesn't increase or decrease your odds of meeting a criminal and only a fucking retard would think so. Looking at stats before and after don't make the case, correlation is not causation. We learn this as children.

You are one dumb sucker. Hook, line, sinker.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> *John R. Lott Can’t Defend Himself*
> 
> You probably don’t know who John Lott is, but he has been written about a lot recently. To make a long story short, John R. Lott Jr. is an unabashed gun advocate...


blah blah blah...

I guess he should be bashed instead of unabashed to the fair minded reader? He doesn't need to defend himself from hate filled agenda driven morons.

Survey on gun ownership Archives - Crime Prevention Research Center
A new Pew Research Center survey finds that, for the first time in their surveys, the majority of Americans oppose more gun control. Gallup and CNN polls tell a similar story. Opposition to gun control has been increasing over at least the last couple of decades.

Gun control groups have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try to convince Americans that gun control is the answer. In 2013, gun owners’ groups — including the NRA — spent less than one seventh as much on television advertisements. This year looks to be even more lopsided, thanks to the unrelenting efforts of individuals such as Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Gabriel Giffords.

Perceptions have changed dramatically, with most people now believing the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis. Gallup recently asked Americans if they thought residents are safer with a gun in the home. People answered “Yes” by a margin of 63 to 30 percent. In 2000, Americans gave just the opposite answer by a margin of 51 to 35 percent. In 2013,Sixty percent of gun owners listed “Personal Safety/Protection” as the reason for owning a gun.

Academic research aligns with current public opinion. If you have a gun in the home, that gun is far more likely to prevent murder than it is to be used in an accidental shooting or to kill a loved one.  . . .


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Lott studied every county in the United States leading up to concealed carry then after implementation.....he didn't cherry pick the ones that supported his case.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher
> ...




More anti Lott hate because  he proved people carrying guns reduces the crime rate....and you know how we know.....as more Americans have bought guns.....the crime rate has gone down, not up...nationally......same with gun accidents.....

And he has answered each of those attacks......it would be good to here what Lott....and people who know him, say about the computer crash ....and when he used Mary Rosh to go on line to discuss his work......seems that when he went on as Dr. John Lott, the anti gunners just spent their time calling him names.......


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > *John R. Lott Can’t Defend Himself*
> ...



Blah, blah, blah...the man you vehemently defend already revealed his character...

Lott's book received glowing praise from one Mary Rosh...who is Mary Rosh?

Why it is none other than JOHN LOTT impersonating one Mary Rosh...

A most respectable thing to do, don't you THINK Weasel brain??

*But now you have also revealed YOUR character... something we are taught, or NOT taught as children...*

*YES, JOHN LOTT AGAIN....*If you are an econometrician — a person who evaluates the real world using complex statistical models — there are two basic ways you can go about your job:


You can do your best to figure out which statistical model does the best job of mirroring the real world, and then plug in your data and see what pops out. We will call this methodology _tolerably honest_.


You can plug in your data first, and then tweak your model until it provides the results you want. We will call this methodology _dishonest bullshit_.

The alert reader has probably guessed that I am talking here about the latest sad chapter in the John Lott saga, and indeed I am. The indefatigable Tim Lambert is on the case, and assuming I have been able to put the timeline together correctly, here's what's happened:


Lott and two coauthors produced a statistical model ("Model 1") that showed significant crime decreases when states passed concealed carry gun laws.


Back in April, two critics discovered that there were errors in the data Lott used. When the correct data was plugged into Lott's model, his results went away.


After a long silence, Lott admitted the data errors and posted a table with new results. Oddly, though, his new results were similar to his old ones and continued to show significant drops in crime. So who's right, Lott or his critics?


Answer: his critics. It turns out that since he really had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, _he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table_ — but without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact. Note: In less refined circles this would be called "lying."


When Tim discovered that Lott had surreptitiously changed his model, he emailed Lott. No response.


It turns out Lott was busy covering his tracks. How? By quietly removing the corrected table from his website and replacing it with a _new_ corrected table. This one uses Model 2 _but has the old, incorrect data._


Here's where you have to pay attention. Why would Lott do this?

Answer: this new table claims to be "corrected: April 18, 2003," and it turns out that Lott is trying to pretend that _this _was the original table he had posted all those months ago. That way, he could claim that he had never changed his model at all. Model 2 is the one he's been using all along!


Unfortunately, when Lott changed the revision date on the document to make it look like it had been created on 4/18/03, he changed it to 1/18/04 instead. What's more, Lott apparently doesn't know that you can check the create date of PDF documents anyway, and this one was created on 9/2/03. That is, it was created in September, not April.

Basically, Lott wants to pretend that Model 2 is the one he's always used. That way, when he corrects the data errors, his results still hold up. Unfortunately for Lott, his attempts to rewrite history were as clumsy as they were dishonest. His original table _did _use Model 1, his results _do _go away when the corrected data is plugged in, and he _did _respond to this by furtively devising a new model that would continue to give him the results he wanted.

If you're not sure you understand what's going on here, reread the timeline. Reread it five or six times. Eventually it will all become clear.

And a note to Glenn Reynolds, who has said he is "not sufficiently knowledgeable to opine on the statistical questions": my timeline deliberately avoids discussing the validity of the competing econometric models, which I'm not competent to judge either. Rather, it simply shows how Lott works, something that anyone is competent to judge. He's a liar and a cheat, and merely being "quite reluctant" to rely on him is far too weak a response.

The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.
> ...




Are you kidding me.....this story is....an armed civilian enters the scene of a mass shooting......sees a man with a gun.....AND DOES NOT SHOOT HIM....but disarms him...peacefully.....

Soooooo this idiot author says this was a problem....when this guy didn't shoot anyone and peacefully subdued a suspect with a gun without firing a shot....

Really.....that is what you have.?....try again....


And the best part of this idiots article......




> We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions.





Soooooooo all of those stupid anti gun memes about out of control, blood thirsty civilian concealed carry permit holders just waiting to be the hero so they can kill someone.....

And this guy enters the fray, doesn't shoot anyone, holds a suspect peacefully till police arrive and no one was injure by him and his gun....this author is an idiot.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




I don't have time to get the link but the two idiots attacking lott lied........they used the wrong data....got the wrong results, then blamed Lott.......


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



No pea brain, the guy with the gun almost fucked up the whole take-down of the REAL shooter. Thank God Patricia Maisch, Bill Badger and Roger Sulzgeber were still able to restrain the REAL shooter while the guy with the gun INTERFERED...

And the best part of the article...

*"one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."*


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.


LOL, the retard doubles down.

Post the facts that contradict Lott's study, not some mealy mouth bullshit.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.
> ...



http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.pdf


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You are a real fool......everything in this article supports the opposite of what you are trying to say........He didn't fuck up the whole take down he looked at the situation and didn't start shooting so that he could finally get to kill someone....as all you anti gunners claim about people who carry.....he saw the situation was under control....and didn't shoot....moron.......you are the real pea brain.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.
> ...




Yeah...that story about the woman is not confirmed as being true.....and the only reason they were able to tackle the shooter...after he shot those people...was he did it from in a crowd....too close to the people he was shooting so they were able to get him quickly....that didn't happen on the Long Island Commuter train shooting.....they were on a crowded train...and he fired and reloaded and they only tackled him when he ran out of bullets........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Here is John Lott actually addressing attacks against him.....in his own words.....

Response to Malkin s Op-ed


It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. 

_ 2) As to the “claim” that I lost my data in a computer crash on July 3, 1997, I have offered Malkin the statements from nine academics (statements attached), four of whom I was co-authoring papers with at the time and who remember quite vividly also losing the data that we had on various projects. David Mustard at the University of Georgia spent considerable time during 1997 helping me replace gun crime data. Other academics worked with me to replace data on our other projects. Just so it is clear, this computer crash basically cost me all my data on all my projects up to that point in time, including all the data and word files for my book, More Guns, Less Crime, and numerous papers that were under review at journals. The next couple of years were hell trying to replace things and the data for this survey which ended up being one sentence in the book, was not of particular importance. However, all the data was replaced, including not only the large county level data, the state level data, as well as the survey data, when the survey was redone._

He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records.

_ * Unlike many academics, I have never asked for government support for my research. Nothing different or unusual was done in this case. While we still have the tax forms that we filed that show we made large expenditures on research assistants that year, my wife keeps our financial documents for the three years required by the IRS. I have provided my tax records from that year to several professors. Among them is a tax expert, Professor Joe Olson, at Hamline University in Minnesota, and he can verify this information. I have checked with the bank that we had an account with, but they only keep records five years back. Since wild claims have been made about the costs of the survey, some notion of its scope would be useful. The survey was structured so that over 90 percent of those questioned would only have to answer three short questions and those were usually completed in under 30 seconds. Less than one percent of those surveyed would actually answer as many as seven questions and even in that case the survey only took about two minutes. The appendix in The Bias Against Guns provides a description of the survey when it was replicated._
He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.

_ * I have hired lots of student RAs over the years. Since I have been at AEI in the last couple of years I have had around 25 people work for me on various projects. The students in question worked for me during the very beginning of 1997. While I can usually reconstruct who has worked for me, it requires that I have that material written down. The information on these students was lost in the hard disk crash and given that I had lost data for other projects such as three revise-and-resubmits that I had at the Journal of Political Economy it was not a particularly high priority. _
_I don’t have the original CD with telephone numbers from across the country that was used to obtain telephone numbers, but I have kept one that I obtained later in 1997 when I was considering redoing the survey and I still have that available._
Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.

_ 3) I have statements from two people who took the survey and other confirmatory evidence. As to the written material, being asked for written material six years after the survey is a long time. After the survey was done, the material was kept on my computer. In addition, I have moved three times (Chicago to Yale to Pennsylvania to AEI) as well as changed offices at Chicago and Yale since the summer of 1997. Yet, besides the statements from the academics who can verify the hard disk crash as well as the statement of those who participated in the survey, I do have statements David Mustard, who I had talked to numerous times about doing the survey with me during 1996 and who remembers after that us talking about the survey after it was completed. He is “fairly confident” that those conversations took place during 1997. John Whitley and Geoff Huck also have some recollections. Russell Roberts, now a professor at George Mason, was someone else that I talked to about the survey, but he simply can’t remember one way of the other. I didn’t talk to people other than co-authors about the survey and the research that I was doing on guns generally. This is because of the often great hostility to my gun work and also because I didn’t want to give those who disliked me a heads-up on what I was doing. I did have the questions from the survey and they were reused in the replicated survey in 2002.

After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997. Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted.

 4) David Gross is the only person who Malkin mentions and she doubts his statements. Gross, a former city prosecutor, does have strong feelings on guns, but that is one reason why he remembers talking to me about the survey when I gave a talk in Minnesota a couple of years after the survey. There was no other gun survey on the questions that I asked during 1997. And another survey that was given close in time, during the beginning of 1996, was dramatically different from mine (e.g., the 1996 survey was done by a polling firm (not by students), was very long with at least 32 open ended questions (not something that could be done in a few minutes), involved Harvard (not Chicago), did not ask about brandishing, etc.). What Gross remembers indicates that it could only have been my survey.

Malkin also selectively quotes Lindgren. Lindgren told the Washington Times that, “I interviewed [Mr. Gross] at length and found him credible.” Mr. Gross has also responded to later statements made by Lindgren.


I have also had a second person who participated interviewed by Jeff Parker, the former associate dean at the George Mason University Law School. Parker interviewed both James Hamilton as well as Hamilton's sister, who claims that James told her about the interview when it occurred, and he can verify this information. 
Lindgren claimed that Gross had instead answered a quite different survey done by Hemenway at Harvard, but when Hemenway finally released the data from both his 1996 and 1999 surveys and the age and other information about Gross and Hamilton do not match any subject interviewed in either survey.
Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet.
 * When Julian Sanchez asked about the similarities between my writings and those posted under this Internet chat room pseudonym during this past January I did admit it immediately. (Sanchez had put up a post on his blog site asking for help in identifying someone who was cutting and pasting many of my responses from other places in chat room discussions. Because a dynamic IP address was being used, Sanchez could only identify the posting as coming from someone in southeastern Pennsylvania. When I found that he was asking for help in identifying the poster I admitted that I was using the pseudonym.) I had originally used my own name in chat rooms but switched after receiving threatening and obnoxious telephone calls from other Internet posters. Ninety some percent of the posters in the chatroom were pretty clearly using pseudonyms. The fictitious name was from a family e-mail account we had set up for our children based on their names (see latter discussion), on a couple of occasions I used the female persona implied by the name in the chat rooms to try to get people to think about how people who are smaller and weaker physically can defend themselves. Virtually all the posting were on factual issues involving guns and the empirical debates surrounding them. All that information was completely accurate.
"Rosh" gushed that Lott was "the best professor that I ever had."

 *This was a family email account and I was not the only person who posted using this account.
She/he also penned an effusive review of "More Guns, Less Crime" on Amazon.com: "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well." (Lott claims that one of his sons posted the review in "Rosh's" name.)

 *The e-mail account was set up by my wife for my four sons (Maxim, Ryan, Roger, and Sherwin in birth order) and involves the first two letters of each of their names in order of their birth. Maxim wrote several reviews on Amazon.com using that e-mail account and signed in using maryrosh@aol.com, not “Mary Rosh.” His posting included not only a review of my book, but also reviews of computer games such as Caesars III. 


 For whatever it is worth, a recent glich at Amazon.com revealed that it is quite common practice for authors to actually write positive anonymous reviews of their own books. The New York Times story on this revelation was actually quite sympathetic, which contrasts with the attack that the New York Times had on me when it also incorrectly claimed that I had written the review of my book. 
Just last week, "Rosh" complained on a blog comment board: "Critics such as Lambert and Lindgren ought to slink away and hide."

By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.

 *It would have been helpful if Malkin had actually read the text of what I wrote.
Some Second Amendment activists believe there is an anti-gun conspiracy to discredit Lott as "payback" for the fall of Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory University professor who engaged in rampant research fraud to bolster his anti-gun book, "Arming America." But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.

 *The January 23rd story in the Washington Times could not accurately be described as a negative story. Professor Dan Polsby is quoted as saying that I was “vindicated.” Even Lindgren, a critic whose academic work I have criticized in the past (Journal of Law and Politics, Winter 2001), is characterized by the Times as believing that “ the question appears to have been at least partially resolved . . . “ and he did say that David Gross was a credible witness.
In an interview Monday, Lott stressed that his new defensive gun use survey (whose results will be published in the new book) will show similar results to the lost survey. But the existence of the new survey does not lay to rest the still lingering doubts about the old survey's existence.

 *She never asked me any questions about whether the old survey was done.
The media coverage of the 1997 survey data dispute, Lott told me, is "a bunch to do about nothing."

 *This quote is totally taken out of context. Some people had accused me of violating federal regulations regarding federal approval for human experiments while I was at Chicago. Malkin’s telephone call focused on that claim, and that is what my quote referred to. 
I wish I could agree.



 I spent years replacing the data lost in the hard disk crash. The county level crime data was replaced and given out to academics at dozens of universities so that they could replicate every single regression in More Guns, Less Crime. I have also made the data for my other book The Bias Against Guns available at http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/login.cgi . The data for my other reserach has also been made available. The survey was also replicated and obtained similar results to the first survey and the new data has been made available since the beginning of the year. When asked I have even made my data available before the research was published. I don't think that there are any academics who have had a better record then I have in making my data available to other researchers. For an example of just on of my recent critics who has refused to share his data see here . I have provided Malkin with the information noted here, but she has never replied to e-mails that I have sent her. _


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.
> ...




Never, ever trust an anti gunner reporter, or an anti gunner who quotes them....here is what actually happened with the old lady and the shooter....she was laying on the ground, helpless, when the other guys tackled the guy.....as he was on the ground she joined in...otherwise she would have been killed like the other people....

Tucson Shooting Patricia Maisch Describes Stopping Gunman Jared Loughner From Reloading - ABC News

"_ knew right away it was a gun... I heard a continuation of shots," Maisch told a news conference today. 

 Maisch, who has a crown of snow-white hair, was standing towards the back of the line to greet and snap a photo with Giffords at the "Congress in Your Corner" event at a Safeway grocery store. 

 Speaking to the press today, Maisch recalled how she stopped Loughner as he tried to reload his Glock 9 mm weapon. 

 "I could see him coming. [He] shot the lady next to me," Maisch said. 

 As he was shooting, she said, she was expecting to be hit and she wondered what it would feel like. 

 There was "lots of blood and confusion," she said. 

*She considered trying to run away, she said, but thought that would make her more of a target, so she laid down on the ground. But then something unexpected happened. *

 "Then he was next to me on the ground," she said. "*The gentleman knocked him down. *

*"I kneeled over him. He was pulling a magazine [to reload] and I grabbed the magazine and secured that. I think the men got the gun, and I was able to get the magazine," she said. *

 Maisch said Badger and Sulzgeber both sat on the gunman while she held his ankles down. Police said that Zimudie helped by hanging on to Loughner's legs. 

 Sulzgeber was reportedly standing with his wife, third in line to meet with Giffords, while Zimudie was in the nearby Walgreens and came running out once he heard the shooting. 

 "I thought I would be shot. I am thankful for those two brave men," Maisch said. "I am not a hero. The other guys are. I just assisted getting the clip." __



So........just plain dumb luck that she was right there when he was tackled...because he fired from inside a crowd.................and if those guys had run....he could very well have executed her......because she just laid down in front of him.................._


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Hello? Is there anyone home? He grabbed a GOOD GUY and shoved him into a wall...he could have fucked up the take-down of the REAL shooter. I don't question his courage, his intent or that he was trying to help.

But we are dealing with REAL LIFE situations, not the fairy tale scenarios you have infested this thread with

_First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing *he wasn't the shooter.* And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."_

I know in you tiny little right wing brain good guys wear white, and bad guys wear black. It makes it SO much easier to shoot the bad guy...


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



They were ALL heroes asshole, including the guy with the gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Fucking moron...he saw a guy with a gun and took him under control in the middle of a mass shooting............and didn't fire a shot... because he saw the situation was under control...moron.....



> *It makes it SO much easier to shoot the bad guy.*




But he didn't shoot the bad guy you moron.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

And again moron from your own post....



> _First, *upon seeing the man with the gun, *Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing *he wasn't the shooter.* _



And then he didn't shoot him but stayed calm and took care of his immediate situation...moron....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Again.....law abiding, honest citizens are not blood thirsty killers looking to "Pop caps" in any one they can....your very own post shows how this guy in an intense situation did the right thing......


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



We already have background checks.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


I get very weary of correcting you...
Background checks restrict the rights of the law abiding every bit as much a s prior restraint restricts the rights of the free press.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.


This is a lie,
Every person who bought a gun from a gun dealer at an AZ gun show had a background check ran on him.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways?  I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right?  Do you think we should do background checks on voters?  Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.
> ...


I said COUNTING on people to disarm a gunman between reloads is a cynical ploy.  If you can't understand simple statements you should get another hobby.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

Does anyone believe that a person who is planning on committing a crime is going to purchase a gun in the legal manner?  Then it would be quite easy to trace that gun back to that particular criminal.  That is why they go through the black market.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Do we have to go through this all again, Chris?

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



What I think is that he should never be out of jail.  If we cannot trust a person enough to practice their rights, then they have no business being out of jail to begin with.  THAT is the problem.  We are too soft on criminals and crime.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Not relevant to this thread.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Sure it is.  Completely relevant.  Just as relevant as YOU bringing up John Hinckley.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?


Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm.   None.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?
> ...



That's not my quote.  That is Vandal's quote.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I know.   I edited badly.
Vandal doesnt like it when I call him on his lies, and so he has me on ignore.
Speaks for itself.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Okay, as long as you know that wasn't me who asked that question.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?
> ...



And you are absolutely correct because I just checked on this.  However, I don't have a problem with background checks (as they stand now) to check and SEE if said person trying to purchase a firearm is a felon or not.  

How do you feel about it and why?  I'm just trying to learn here, not starting an argument, so don't yell at me and call me names.   

Owning a Gun - Felony Restrictions

*Owning A Gun*
*Can felons own guns? Is this governed by state or federal law? Does this apply to only certain types of guns or all guns?*

In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where your civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until your felony is expunged, you are not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

*Ammunition*
Many felons don't realize this, but the federal ban on owning a firearm also applies to any type of ammunition - if you are caught with just a bullet you are in violation of this ban and subject to another felony (this one federal, meaning a lot more jail time and less chance of a pardon).

*Does this only apply to concealed weapons?*
Actually this law applies not only to concealed weapons, but also to any firearm that might be in your own. In the United States, felons are not legally allowed to bear arms - this is a point of controversy because it means in essence that you cannot defend yourself if somebody breaks into your home.

*How can you legally own a gun again?*
The easiest way to regain your right to bear arms is to have your felony expunged. Some states, however, offer felons the opportunity to own a handgun again after a certain amount of time has passed from the successful completion of probation. This is rare and there are many states, such as North Carolina, where a felon can never again own a weapon.

*Are any types of felonies excluded?*
Actually, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20)(A) specifically exempts a few types of felonies:

...any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Of course I am  


> How do you feel about [background checks] and why?


Short version:

Background checks are a form of prior restraint and as such create an undue burden on the exercise of the right to arms. -- the state may not presume all who seek to buy a gun are 'guilty' of dong so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Makes sense.  But still, I don't necessarily object to doing a background check (as long as it is speedy) to check if a person wishing to purchase a weapon has any kind of violent felonies in his or her background.  If I was a gun seller, I would want to be sure I wasn't selling a weapon to a criminal.  If that criminal did go on a shooting spree with a weapon that I had sold him or her, then I feel an awful lot of guilt about that.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




That's not true.....most positives are false, and go against normal, law abiding people...which delays their ability to get their weapon...most criminals get friends who can pass the check get the gun, thereby nullifying the whole thing....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Excellent point.......well said......


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



That's a good point, but do you feel that there should be NO background checks?  It does prevent criminals from legally obtaining weapons after all.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




No...he shouldn't be free, he should have been executed.....using mental illness checks to keep guns out of his hands are fine.....sadly....that isn't what the gun grabbers want...they want to include soldiers returning from combat, people with insomnia......and any number of non dangerous issues for mental health professionals...we know how they think and what they want and they will use the mental health background check to deny regular people guns....

I'm not saying we can't have some sort of screen....but I'm not letting the gun grabbers design it....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

It doesn't prevent them from getting GUNS, but it prevents them from getting them in a legal manner.  OTOH, should a person be discriminated against in such a manner?  This is kind of like imposing a punishment for a crime not even committed.  It's a tough call, IMO.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I don't believe in the death penalty, so here you and I will have to part ways.    He SHOULD have to spend the rest of his life behind bars or in a mental hospital though.  Cold-blooded murderers should never get out of jail, IMO, insane or sane . . . doesn't matter.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Here Lott responds to Lambert on some things lambert was bitching about....

Response to Lambert


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Here is a defender of Lott taking on one of his critics...

My Comments on the Lott Controversy.html


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....

The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

*QUOTE:
*
We do know one of the heroic first responders was indeed armed: Joe Zamudio, age 24. The following is drawn from his account of the incident from his perspective, shared with the rest of the class when he subsequently attended a Massad Ayoob Group program in nearby Sierra Vista, hosted by decorated combat vet Dan Southard of Gator Farm Tactical. This, lightly edited for space considerations, is his story.

*Zamudio’s Experience*

“It was Saturday,” Joe began. “I didn’t have to work, so I went to have breakfast with my mom. On the way back, I went to Walgreen’s. Walking up to the door, I saw a crowd of people (at the rally), and went in to get cigarettes before seeing what was going on. As I was asking the lady behind the counter for a pack of Camels, I heard one shot, then a chain of shots real fast, before she could hand me the cigarettes. It sounded like fireworks. I just responded and ran out door. As I cleared the door, a man in front of me who had been wounded in the leg said, ‘Shooter! Shooter! Get down!’”

Zamudio had long kept a gun in his car. The previous August, when buying a Ruger P95 9mm, he had learned from the gun dealer that Arizona had legalized permit-less carry, and from that day on had worn the Ruger constantly. Left-handed, he was carrying it that day, butt forward in the inside right breast pocket of his jacket, fully loaded with 16 rounds.

*Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon. He did.*

*“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground. Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”*

*Killer Restrained*

“The world went into slow motion,” Joe continued. “I assessed the situation. Bill had Loughner by the neck on the ground. Roger stood on the gun and leaned over and grabbed Loughner’s shoulder, holding him down. Patricia had been on the ground when she grabbed the loaded magazine away from him, and she shimmied over his legs. Loughner began to struggle, and Patricia asked me to take her place. I got down onto the back of his knee and put a hand on his hip. A fourth gentleman put a foot on his back, he wasn’t going anywhere. I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes. All Loughner ever said during that time was, ‘Ow. You’re breaking my arm.’”

*Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.* Bill Badger was bleeding, the first real blood I saw, and it hit me that this had really happened, all these people got shot. The enormity of it set in.

**************************

So....an actual, detailed account of this man's actions....hmmmmmm...different from the author of  that articles report......


Okay, this is an important part of the story which the anti gunner overlooked...or didn't know about because he used an anti gunner journalist as his source...



> I tried to call 911 but couldn’t get through, tried three times. The police showed up in about four minutes.



4 minutes after they had subdued this guy the police show up....after he killed those people....

And the anti gunners only want cops to have guns......

They are so lucky he shot from inside a crowd and allowed people to be close to him when he started shooting....


And another point for you brain and for you bfgrn...the only reason they were able to wrestle him....just plain, stupid luck........otherwise, he would have reloaded and kept shooting...he missed this guy....



> Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.




Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

So brain.....your example of the gabby giffords shooting....as an example of tackling a mass shooter during a magazine change is completely false.....I know...it happens to me sometimes to....when you think you have gold and it turns around on you.....again...

the shooter at the Giffords rally was tackled because he actually shot Bill Badger and thought he was dead....he let Badger get behind him who then assaulted him from behind...not during a magazine change...

And the old lady who "stripped" the magazine....she had just laid on the ground in the hope that the shooter would choose another victim....and only got involved when the shooter fell right in front of her...and then she grabbed his magazine.....

So it wasn't during a magazine change...it was just plain, dumb luck for Bill Badger and the old lady.....Badger was grazed in the head when he fell...and she just laid down....




> Joe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. That was when the wrestling started.


Not rushing the guy during a magazine change brain, and Bfgrn...he thought the guy was dead....after he shot him...and let Bill Badger get behind him.......you are wrong again brain....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

And  now it also occurs to me...the anti gunners keep bitching...."if you have a guy with a gun in a mass shooting he is just going to make it worse, shooting innocent people or getting in the way of the police........and on and on...."

Here we have the famous Gabby Giffords shooting....two men on the scene carrying concealed guns...in the middle of an active mass shooter...

And you know what anti gunners....neither one of them fired a shot....they did not spray and pray, they did not shoot because they couldn't wait to kill someone, they didn't shoot a minority for the fun of it....and they didn't take out their penis and measure it next to their gun....

Neither of them shot...the one guy...he didn't shoot and was waiting to see if the shooter was handled by Bill Badger and the other guy.....and the main focus of your article Bfgrn......didn't shoot either because he didn't have to, and he peacefully took the other lawful gun owner into custody until it was known he wasn't a threat....

Everything you anti gunners bitch and moan about and scream will happen in one of these events....and in one of the most famous ones in recent times.....and none of your F*****g predictions happened........


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



*Link on "most positives are false", please*. And before you make up statistics, please be aware that I work for my county's sheriff Auxiliary, and we fingerprint and do background checks 5 days per week. In fact, one of my duty days was today from noon until 4, AZ time. I would also add that we do a background check on everyone who wants to volunteer for the Auxiliary. We turn away 2 or 3 people per year because of these background checks, and* not once, in the 5 years that I have served, has anyone ever challenged our declination of his application to serve, because of a false background check.*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...


CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system.  Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”  The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives.  The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious).  To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. *That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.*


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...
> 
> 
> CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center
> ...



What is your opinion on background checks?  For or against and why or why not?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go...everything you need to know about background checks...
> ...




On Background checks....I would be fine with what we have now...but they need to clean it up so that it doesn't mess up so much.....I do this mainly to appease the anti gunners who want it even though it only hassles law abiding gun owners...

As to adding mental illness to the background check......I don't trust the anti gunners when they push this...they want to use it to classify any interaction with a mental health professional as a reason to pull someones gun rights...as in the case of insomnia.....

Also, they need to be instantaneous, and no permanent record...just a pass fail...otherwise you are giving the anti gunners a registry they can use later...to either ban guns or simply to publish who owns guns in the local paper...which they did after Sandy Hook....

Does that help...?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Sure does.  Thanks for your input.   

I would agree with the mental illness classification, because a person can be situationally depressed and seek mental health counseling for that.  That, I don't think, should disqualify that person from owning a gun for self defense.  Situational depression is not a "lasting" type of mental problem but only temporary.  Also, that could affect those who suffer from ADD or other such mild disorders which they can outgrow and/or those which can be controlled with medication.  

Now, what do you mean by cleaning it up?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




This is from John Lott on the false positives that hassle law abiding gun owners....I posted it earlier...

CPRC in the Associated Press on background checks - Crime Prevention Research Center


But saying that half the denials are later overturned after appeal gives a misleading impression of the number of mistakes that were made by the NICS system.  Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF field offices for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”  The last two of these three categories are clearly false positives.  The first might involve false positives, but it is possible that the disqualifying offenses are too old (though there are some prosecutions that involve misdemeanor violations that are four decades old so that isn’t too obvious).  To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun. (Numbers for 2010 are available here.)

Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




And as far as the mental health issues...they won't just look at the big issues...depression and such.....if you see a grief counselor...or I would bet a family counselor....they will use that to take your gun rights.....don't doubt it for a second.....if you say you feel blue on any mental health exam.....they will want to pull your rights...

VS.

The Colorado theater killer, who scared his professor at the community college so much he told colleagues he expeted to get shot in the back standing at the  chalk board, and the student in class who wrote in her journal that this guy would probably come back to class and kill everyone.....

those are the guys we need to stop...not the people with insomnia....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Well how can they get away with denying a person if the individuals did not have a record which would make it illegal for them to possess a gun?  Mistakes?  

What is "referral guidelines?"


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 23, 2015)

You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....

As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....
> 
> As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......



Well, there is also a little thing known as doctor/patient confidentiality and HIPAA laws.  HIPAA laws would tend to interfere with any kind of mental health background checks.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 23, 2015)

2aguy said:


> You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....
> 
> As to mental health checks...I don't know how it could be implemented and not give the anti gunners a new weapon against gun owners.......



Would you classify me as an ant gunner? I ask, because I own 5 guns (all but the first bought after background checks), but I am a firm believer in background checks for everybody...including my X-son-in-law, who can best be described as "unstable", who bought a sniper rifle at a gun show which has a range so long that there is not a single public gun range in his state that is long enough for him to sight it in for it's intended range. His background check may, or may not reveal that he has been to see a  psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies for two series of sessions in the last 8 years.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 23, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....
> ...


And the vast majority of gun owners agree with you: 

"While gun owners, unlike the public at large, oppose gun control measures such as banning assault-style weapons, a big majority of gun owners (85%) support making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. That matches the level of support among the general public for doing this.”

Most Gun Owners Favor Background Checks for Private Gun Sales Pew Research Center


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 24, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


That one is declined on a NICS background check doesn't mean he isn't allowed to purchase and take possession of his firearm if he's not a prohibited person:

“A Delayed message from the NICS indicates the subject of a NICS background check has been matched with a similar name and similar descriptive information associated with a record containing a potential state or federal firearm prohibition. The NICS Section must obtain additional information before making a final determination of a Proceed or Denied for the firearm transfer. The NICS Section is afforded three business days in which to conduct this research. _*If the NICS Section is unable to provide either a Proceed or Denied response to the Federal Firearms Licensee within three business days, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 does not prohibit the Federal Firearms Licensee, or FFL, from transferring the firearm*_; however, the FFL is not required to do so.”

FBI Reasons NICS Background Checks are Denied or Delayed

The burden of proof rests with the government, not the person buying the gun; if the government is not able to establish that the buyer is a prohibited person, the buyer is allowed to take possession of his firearm.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 24, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No, he saw a GOOD GUY who took a gun away from a bad guy that just killed 6 people and thought he was subduing a bad guy. He endangered everyone by removing one of three good guys subduing the BAD GUY.

Maybe an adult in your trailer park can explain these adult issues.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 24, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....
> 
> The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner
> 
> ...



You don't even know what YOU are posting.

*Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 24, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Fallacy:  appeal to popularity.

Background checks create an undue burden on the exercise of the right to arms. -- the state may not presume all who seek to buy a gun are 'guilty' of dong so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 24, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Don't you think that is infringing upon the right?  The government is infringing on people's right, and you applaud this?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 24, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....
> ...



Where is YOUR link?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




I posted the actual, full account of the guy you cited, and he says Bill Badger was shot in the head and fell....it was a glancing blow and he didn't die and wasn't incapacitated, and the shooter moved past him putting his back to Bill Badger.....then Bill Badger attacked him from behind...since he was now close to the shooter and behind him.....

Plain dumb luck......he didn't rush the guy initially as you guys make out....he was shot and assumed dead....

The old woman........she didn't bravely charge the shooter and wrestle the magazine away from him as he reloaded....she laid down hoping to be ignored by the shooter...and when Bill Badger knocked the guy to the ground...he fell right in front of her....and as he was trying to put in a new magazine from the ground as he was wrestling with 2 guys...then she grabbed his magazine....

Again...plain dumb luck on her part....

Really.....do you comprehend what you read....?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You would have to read his actual research on the subject, it probably goes into more detail....
> ...




As an actual gun grabber, no.  But I don't think you have thought through the implications of background checks.....first, that they don't stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....and second, how they can be used to deny guns to law abiding citizens.....and three, that anti gunners actually do want to ban guns any way they can.....


other than that you seem like a swell person......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




After a review....and how long does that take?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go....an actual account of the guy at the giffords shooting....
> ...




Here you go.....he shot the guy and missed, just grazing him.....and advanced as he did it putting him in range of the guy he just shot....what part of his shooting the guy don't you get...it was dumb luck that saved Bill Badger and put the guy in reach....



> oe adds, “Bill Badger was bleeding profusely from his head. *He told me as Loughner was shooting everyone, (Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired, the bullet took skin off down to the skull but did no real damage. Bill went down. When the gun stopped firing, Bill raised back up and Loughner was right in front of him. *That was when the wrestling started. Bill Badger was bleeding, the first real blood I saw, and it hit me that this had really happened, all these people got shot. The enormity of it set in.



So you can get past your poor comprehension skills....here is the important part...



> *(Loughner approached him and) pointed the gun at Bill’s head. Bill reflexively turned his head away, and when Loughner fired,*


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




Again....excellent point....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 24, 2015)

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I think you quoted me accidentally.    You probably meant to quote Bfgrn.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 24, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Even far right Justice Scalia and Ronald Reagan disagree...

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. *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.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 24, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



The link? I posted from The Tucson Atrocity Joe Zamudio s Story American Handgunner

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be Roger Sulzgeber, one of my personal heroes. He and Bill Badger had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground.* Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him. *There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”


----------



## Abatis (Mar 24, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Even far right Justice Scalia and Ronald Reagan disagree...
> 
> 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. *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



That does not say what you think it says and that has been borne out in lower court inspection.  The above must be read in conjunction with footnote 26.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And I quoted his full comments.....where he said Bill Badger had been shot by the shooter but had turned his head and was just grazed....but he fell to the ground and the shooter kept advancing....plain, dumb luck that the shooter missed and then got too close, had he kept his distance he would have kept shooting....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.
> ...




Your original quote came from  ABC news....my source was Massad Ayoob who actually talked to the man....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 24, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



You know, 2Aguy?  A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




No...you posted the story from ABC news......and you didn't quote the important part......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 24, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




That, sadly, is easy....

1) The Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights keeps them from out right banning guns....makes them angry

2) the real world statistics....the fact that more people are actually buying guns and are now carrying them...makes them angry

3) That even in the face of Sandy Hook...they couldn't get AR-15s banned....makes them angry..

4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry..


Soooooo....in order to deal with the truth...which is not on their side....and in order to deal with reality...which is not on their side...

All they have left is to make up statistics and lie.....to try to get done that which reality prevents them from doing...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 25, 2015)

"4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."

How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 25, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Even far right Justice Scalia and Ronald Reagan disagree...
> ...



Blah, blah is your reply?

Footnote 26

 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Do you need an adult to explain this to you???


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



From YOUR link...(NO ONE would possibly call this site unbiased, or "anti-gun")







The takedown of the mass murderer was a study in citizens’ courage. *As Loughner attempted to reload after emptying his pistol*, one of the intended victims in the crowd reportedly smashed him in the back of the head with a folding metal chair. Retired Colonel Bill Badger, age 74, tackled the killer and brought him to the ground. Already down on the sidewalk herself, Patricia Maisch, 61, ripped a fresh magazine out of Loughner’s hand. Roger Sulzgeber separated him from his gun, and he and Joseph Zamudio held him down, immobile, until the first responding Tucson PD officer arrived at the scene.

Zamudio continued, “I reached into my pocket, put my hand on my pistol, took the safety off, and ran down the sidewalk (toward the shooting scene). That’s when I saw a group of people wrestling with (Loughner). The first thing I focused on was the man closest to me. His back was to me. He raised up with a Glock in his hand, open, magazine sticking out. In that second I decided that because the gun was open, I didn’t have to shoot him. *I immediately grabbed him by the wrist, turned the gun in toward him, told him to drop the weapon*. He did.

“Even as he was dropping the gun, everyone yelled, ‘It’s not him, it’s not him!’ I said, ‘Put it down.’ I was hearing people yell, ‘I’ll kill you, you motherf***er, I’ll kill you.’ When the man dropped the gun I said, ‘Put your foot on it, make us all feel safe,’ and he did. This turned out to be *Roger Sulzgeber*, one of my personal heroes. *He* and Bill Badger *had grabbed Loughner and pulled him to the ground*. *Apparently the gun had jammed, either misfired or didn’t feed, and Loughner was trying to reload again when they grabbed him*. There was an empty mag on ground, a full one that mis-fed in the gun, and another full magazine Patricia Maisch got away from him.”


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 25, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Blah, blah is your reply?



No, my reply was succinct and on point. 

You don't need to be so self-depreciating in acknowledging you don't understand my answer or the _Heller_ quote.



Bfgrn said:


> Footnote 26
> 
> We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
> 
> Do you need an adult to explain this to you???



I doubt you (age notwithstanding) are capable of explaining it because you are so obviously mischaracterizing it. 

I let SCOTUS and courts applying it to explain it to me. 

That passage is not a blanket endorsement of gun control.  It is a warning to both "sides" to not over-read _Heller_.  SCOTUS is only saying that laws not under review in _Heller_ will be considered "presumptively lawful" until they are specifically challenged _*or*_ the Court finally undertakes an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment.  Your quote of _Heller_ is the victim of selective editing; not only is footnote 26 omitted but the statement explaining the conditional status of your passage was also omitted.  As I said, Wikipedia scholarship is lacking . . . 

There have been hundreds of laws challenged and upheld by citing 20th Century federal lower court decisions that inserted the "state's right" or "militia right" (including the generalized "collective right") interpretations of the 2nd Amendment into the federal courts.  Those lower federal court decisions are now invalidated and abrogated by _Heller_ and all those laws upheld by citing that illegitimate line of legal reasoning are infirm and will be thrown aside when challenged.

In actual legal action, footnote 26 has directed the actions of lower federal courts, placing a larger burden on the government defending challenged laws and has in fact, had the action of bringing into question longstanding prohibitions even those seemingly unquestionable under _Heller _like felon dispossession laws.  This has forced the government to actually present evidence and argument that the law passes constitutional muster.

In 2011 the 3rd Circuit said:

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted." -- U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)​
Of course felon disablement of gun rights have been sustained federally because they are deemed founded on legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional and common law.

Now, on the other hand, gun control laws that were upheld by citing _US v Tot_ or _Cases v US_ (and their many illegitimate progeny) and reasoned upon the theories that the 2nd does not secure an individual right, will be struck down.

.


----------



## rdean (Mar 25, 2015)

*Why anti gun people are so angry.....*

Because angry people work really well with guns.


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


>


Thanks for enforcing the OP point,very good job,don't stop,your attempt at wit fell way short.Your ignorance,how ever has pegged the needle.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> "4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."
> 
> How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?




Have you looked at the stats...more people own guns and both the gun murder rate and the gun accident rate are going down, not up.....I know, that makes you angry....deal with it....



> How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?



I don't know...I'm not a lefty.......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




And again....you didn't quote the part where the shooter shot Bill Badger and advanced close to him........you know, the part where he actually shot Bill Badger....and Badger was on the ground.....and the old lady had simply laid on the ground to try to escape notice.....try posting that part....and 

And again....he didn't shoot Sulzgeber, even though he thought he might be another shooter or the shooter...so the anti gun meme that all gun owners can't wait to kill their first criminal, especially if they are a minority is shown to be the crap that it is.....this guy assessed the situation and made rational decisions in the heat of a mass shooting with casualties on the ground...

And you guys are bitching and moaning about his actions.....

And again....he didn't shoot Roger Sulzgeber....you know...because he just wanted to kill someone because he is a gun owner and according to anti gunners all gun owners can't wait to kill......


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Yes, actually it means precisely that. You should take the time to study the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense wasn't even mentioned. The only way people would be required to give up their "assault rifles" is if our police and military did too.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 25, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> "4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."
> 
> How does it feel to live in an alternative universe, where black is white, and tragedy is happiness?



He's right.  You can't ignore the facts.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You may not like the sites, but most of the time, the information is quite accurate.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Lol.  Funny.  I don't believe you.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 25, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > "4) That in the face of more people owning guns...the gun murder rate is going down, and the gun accident rate is going down...that makes them angry.."
> ...



It's true, I guess. I am also angry that children are not dying from smallpox in the USA, that, people still have a little water to drink in California, and that no illegal aliens from Mexico have flown a 767 into the Empire State building. I just can't fool you at all........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 25, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




See...telling the truth....finally....don't you feel better.....?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 25, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Blah, blah is your reply?
> ...



Footnote 26 is an explanatory citation. It does not circumvent the main body of the decision. Scalia was perfectly clear...

_Held: _

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. 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.

The Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:


Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.
The Court noted that this list is not exhaustive *(footnote 26)*, and concluded that the Second Amendment is also consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use at the time, such as M-16 rifles and other firearms that are most useful in military service. In addition, the Court declared that its analysis should not be read to suggest “the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 25, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



It is clear YOU have not read the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt


Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: *the 2nd** Amendment was created to protect the American government. *

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Sorry, it's a constitutionally guaranteed right.  The RIGHT to bear arms.  Guns are not the problem.  Criminals are the problem.  People have ALWAYS had guns in this country.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Nothing about self defense. 


As I was saying.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> <SNIP>



As if swiped "*SmartGunLaws.com*" scholarship is any better than Wikipedia.

It is considered good practice to cite the source of your "commentary" if it is just a cut and paste . . . 

I cite actual cases; you plagiarize hacky anti-gun sites.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 25, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: *the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.*



Thom Hartmann????

What a laughable premise and conclusion written by one of the kookiest left-wing kooks around.

Have you ever read *Federalist 46*?

The 2nd Amendment was written to forever preserve the 17-20 to 1 advantage that armed citizens enjoyed over members of the nation's standing army.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,. . . "​
That ratio remains spot-on today . .  .300 million "souls", >3 million active duty and reserves and 75 million armed citizens. That ratio is what preserves the "free state", not a despotic government monopoly of arms and a disarmed citizenry as asshat Hartmann would argue . . .

And yeah, it stands at 25+ armed citizens to 1 soldier today but hey, we are a bunch of gun nuts huh?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: *the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.*
> ...



Yes, Thomas Hartmann. He is not a kook. He actually deeply researches, READS and understands the documents of our founding generation, from the second amendment to the real meaning of the Boston Tea Party.

Intelligence always trumps dogma and doctrinaire which has become ALL the right wing nuts in this country provides today.

I provided a LINK in my post. So I accept your apology.

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was_ to_ protect the state, not protect the citizens _from_ the state.

Hartmann:

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace.  Want proof?  In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army.  We can have a Navy forever.  We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army?  That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out.  It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations.  So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.  

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?  

With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia.  Today, we call this the National Guard.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Take that up with Scalia...

_Held: _

 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.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: *the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.*
> ...





Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: *the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.*
> ...



The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Yes, Thomas Hartmann. He is not a kook. He actually deeply researches, READS and understands the documents of our founding generation, from the second amendment to the real meaning of the Boston Tea Party.



He has a preconceived belief and while he may read and certainly quotes from original sources, he obviously does not comprehend what he's reading / quoting.



Bfgrn said:


> The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was_ to_ protect the state, not protect the citizens _from_ the state.



That perfect scenario assumes of course the governments (federal and state) are acting within their constitutional boundaries.  The framers talked at length about what the role of the armed citizenry is when federal government usurps powers and tyrannizes . . .  They also speak of the desperate situation if the state governments go off the rails (*Federalist 28*):


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."​



Bfgrn said:


> But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”



Yes, that is the central point of Federalist 46 that I quoted.  Hartmann quotes his sources but refuses to recognize / acknowledge the point the founders / framers were making.

_*Who*_ is in control of this "engine of oppression"?



Bfgrn said:


> Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.”



Absolutely true.

Does Hartmann understand what "liberty" is?  Liberty is the condition of being free from the arbitrary actions of government exercising powers that the people have not granted it. The danger to the liberty of the citizens was and remains usurpation.  Hartmann says:



Bfgrn said:


> Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”



And Hartmann answers the question but apparently still arrives at the wrong conclusion.  The fear was the standing army being an engine of oppression in the_ hands of *rulers*_ . . . a national government.



Bfgrn said:


> Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace.  Want proof?  In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army.  We can have a Navy forever.  We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army?  That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. . . .
> 
> The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations.  So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.



What a dishonest misrepresentation of the framers sentiments.  The fear was not from a military coup; the fear was a President assuming powers outside his constitutional authority and the remedy is Congress being able to restrain him and his misuse of the military through their control of spending (and the same "purse strings" argument is being posited today to try to restrain Dear Leader on multiple issues, e.g., immigration, Obamacare).

In a coup, where the military takes control over the government -- ALL OF IT -- what control would a powerless Congress have?  Typical nonsensical Hartmann reverse "reasoning" to try to support an intellectually bankrupt position.




Bfgrn said:


> But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?
> With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia.  Today, we call this the National Guard.



Yeah, that's it . . .   We defend our "liberty" and resist the rise of an "engine of oppression" by allowing the national government to have a complete monopoly of force, giving it the power to dictate to the people what arms they may keep and bear and oh so ironic, to allow the national government to actually form that hated "engine of oppression", a standing army in time of peace who only answers to the national government.

Please explain how the federal extinguishment of the state militias and the establishment of the National Guard on its ruins, fulfills the object of the 2nd Amendment. 

Seems to me that if you are correct, that the 2nd Amendment's sole reason to exist is the protection of the "state" from the feared "engine of oppression", _a nationalized standing army_, at least one state should have claimed this supposed protection of the 2nd against the federalization of their militias via the Dick Act.  That complete "coup" of state militia powers is what your interpretation should have protected against!

Do you realize that by saying today's National Guard is the legitimate representation of constitutional militia, you are citing the violation of your interpretation and holding it up as a proof of your interpretation?

The exhausting mental gymnastics one must perform to try to follow the anti-gunner's theories . . .


----------



## Abatis (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government.



And that impugns my position how?  The Federalist Papers are considered the best explanation of what the extent of federal powers are under the Constitution and that explanation defeats your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  The Federalists were adamant that the powers of the federal government were strictly limited to just what was conferred and that rights pre-existed the compact and did not depend on the compact. 

Remember the Federalists argued against a bill of rights primarily because they considered it absurd and dangerous to call out things that shall not be done when no power was conveyed to do those things.  They argued that no matter how the provisions were worded, those disposed to usurp would misconstruct and misrepresent the words to try to invent powers to restrict the right. 

*YOU *are exactly what the Federalists warned us about.

*Federalist 84* (paragraph breaks added):


"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining [a fundamental right] afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."​


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Thomas Hartmann. He is not a kook. He actually deeply researches, READS and understands the documents of our founding generation, from the second amendment to the real meaning of the Boston Tea Party.
> ...



AGAIN...

The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government.

Did you READ Federalist 28? Do you COMPREHEND Federalist 28??

Hamilton:


"Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. *An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government."*


----------



## Abatis (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> AGAIN...
> 
> The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government



AGAIN...

And that impugns my position how? The Federalist Papers are considered the best explanation of what the extent of federal powers are under the Constitution and that explanation defeats your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The Federalists were adamant that the powers of the federal government were strictly limited to just what was conferred and that rights pre-existed the compact and did not depend on the compact.



Bfgrn said:


> Did you READ Federalist 28? Do you COMPREHEND Federalist 28??



Yes and many more and the Anti-Federalist Papers too . . .



Bfgrn said:


> Hamilton:
> 
> 
> "Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. *An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government."*



And as usual you (or the authorities you post in support) selectively edit and quote chop and introduce terms and conditions intending only to obfuscate.

Yes, insurrection is dangerous to governments but insurrections are only considered wrong, "if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people."

In other words, as I said, acting within the confines of its constitutional authority. A legitimate government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry fully prepared to defend its liberty.  Your quote, (when read in its entirety), says that insurrection against a just government will be put down by the citizens from areas not inflamed by the contagion.  You again fail to recognize the obverse of the truths you hold out . . . When a government is being a danger to liberty then insurrection is not only permissible it is a duty.

You have zero intellectual integrity.  You go from ignorantly discussing fear of a standing army as being a danger to liberty and an engine of oppression to now conflating insurrection against said oppression as if it is condemnable like insurrection against a legitimate government.

Why must you anti's be so duplicitous?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


The Supreme Court is not the Constitution. You Leftists make that mistake frequently.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 26, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> The Supreme Court is not the Constitution. You Leftists make that mistake frequently.


Usually when the SC makes a decision they do not like.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN...
> ...



If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite 

*Federalist No. 29*
*Concerning the Militia*
Author: *Alexander Hamilton*

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of *regulating the militia*, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, *whenever they were called into service for the public defense.* It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. *This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."*


----------



## Abatis (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite
> 
> *Federalist No. 29*



Since when did we start discussing the regulation of the organized militia?  

The organized militia is not the private citizenry.  

*Expressio unius est exclusio alterius*

You are in for a world of butt-hurt if you want to delve into 29.


----------



## LOki (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


The armies of States are also the "standing armies" you're in denial about.

Militias, comprised of the body of the people, assembled for their own protection, are comprised of the individuals you are in denial of.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite
> ...






Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite
> ...



What part of:
*"governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"*

do you need help with?


----------



## Abatis (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> What part of:
> *"governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"*
> 
> do you need help with?




I need none at all.

I know that specificity distinguishes organized militia members from private citizens who have no militia enrollment status.   

I know that since the clause calls out a class of enrolled militia members who are in service to the nation as the entity that shall fall under the governance of Congress, means that private citizens are excluded from the action of that clause.  

I provided the link to multiple explanations of the rule of construction / interpretation, "_Expressio unius est exclusio alterius_" which governs this situation, did you bother reading any of the definitions?

Why you are exclaiming powers over the organized militia in a discussion of the right to arms of private citizens, is a puzzle of your mind I'm not going to concern myself with any further.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Reading Federalist 29 makes me laugh...the liberals of our founder's generation faced the very same right wing fear filled fanatics we see today. Always creating monsters to fear...

Hamilton:

"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the _sole and exclusive appointment of the officers_? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes --

"Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire";

discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and *transforming everything it touches into a monster.*"


----------



## Abatis (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Reading Federalist 29 makes me laugh...



Not surprising given your profound lack of understanding what you are reading.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Reading Federalist 29 makes me laugh...
> ...



Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...


----------



## Abatis (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...



AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was_ to_ protect the state, not protect the citizens _from_ the state. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats. 

The Federalist Papers and the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia PROVE it...


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



That seems awfully patchy, as if they are leaving things out intentionally.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Well, this is interesting . . . .

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 26, 2015)

*Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution*



Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[47]
Early English settlers in America viewed the _right to arms_ and/or _the right to bear arms_ and/or _state militias_ as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]


enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;[56]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[57][58][59]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 26, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Abatis said:
> ...



"civic duty to act in concert in defense _OF_ the state"...not _against_ the state.

*U.S. Constitution*
(Article 1 - Legislative)

*Article 1, Section 8, line 15*: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

*Article 1, Section 8, line 16*: 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;


*Militia Act of 1792*
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792, 
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

*Section 1*. _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

*Sec. 2.* _And be it further enacted_, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be *opposed or the execution thereof obstructed*, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to *suppress* such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, *shall refuse*, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 26, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You are wrong.  Sorry.  The Supreme Court has granted us the right to bear arms for self defense, and that is CLEARLY stated in the link above that I posted too.  Our 2nd Amendment was based upon that.  The NATURAL right to self defense, and it doesn't matter WHO it is you are defending yourself against.  You have a right to defend yourself.  Period.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 26, 2015)

It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.

We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.

The First Amendment:

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, *and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. *_

The Grievances Clause of the First Amendment guarantees the American people the right to – through either the legal or political process – compel government to refrain from acts the people perceive to be in violation of their civil rights; this can be done by the people filing suit in Federal court or by compelling their elected representatives to repeal measures the people oppose (including replacing those elected representatives if deemed necessary and appropriate during a given election).

Consequently, a contingent of the American people may not 'take up arms' against the Federal government absent the consent of the majority of the people, as all the people must first be afforded their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in a manner authorized by the Constitution and the rule of law, where armed insurrection and mob rule are anathema to our Constitutional Republic.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 26, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.
> 
> We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.
> 
> ...



That doesn't mention anything about tyranny.  If you have a tyrannical government, you don't "petition them" for permission to fight.  That is stupid.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




No...the Supreme Court can't grant that right, it is God given, or for the atheists, a natural right of each individual...the Supreme Court simply pointed this out as anti freedom activists have tried to take that right away from us.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.
> 
> We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.
> 
> ...




Yeah...read what the founders said about what the people should do if the government refused to redress wrongs based on that petition to government......because...they sort of "Petitioned" the King of England with their grievances and he ignored them.......which led to the elements of the 2nd Amendment........


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 27, 2015)

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.
> ...



Well, I don't believe that we the people could fight off a tyrannical government nowadays with guns.  However, that does not negate our 2nd amendment right to self defense and to TRY if that was ever to happen.   

I would also like to think that if our government turned to tyranny, a LARGE portion of our military would abandon the government and fight on the side of the people against the government.  The military, after all, swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.
> 
> We know this to be the case because of the First Amendment, and the fact that one Amendment cannot 'trump' another.
> 
> ...




Hmmmm....it seems like the Kulaks in Russia probably tried to petition for a redress of grievances.......and the same for the Chinese when Mao was in power....and the Rwandans who seemed had a problem with their government arming rival groups with machetes....or even the Mexicans across our border when they bring up the issue of government officials and the drug cartels teaming up to kill them.....

Yeah....how did those petitions to those governments work out for those people.....?  That is why you need to read some of the founders and what they said needed to be done when the government doesn't listen and correct those grievances....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 27, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was never the intent of the Framers that the Second Amendment should act as a 'check' on the Federal government, where if the people were to 'perceive' the Federal government to have become 'tyrannical,' they could 'rise up' and 'overthrow' the Federal government.


Horsepoo.


----------



## Desperado (Mar 27, 2015)

They are just pissed that they do not have the self control or trust themselves enough to own a weapon.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 27, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




Part of it is to deter the government by making sure that as many citizens as possible are armed......jet pilots, drone pilots, tankers and other military personel are not in iron man suits...and they can be killed.....rifles and pistols make that easier.....and around the world, when a government is persecuting the people what do they generally need to fight back....rifles and pistols....just ask the Mexicans who are fighting their government which is working with the drug cartels....

Not every action against the government will be all out revolution....look at Mexico......they need rifles and pistols  to fight off the corrupt local government working with the drug cartels.......


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 27, 2015)

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I know.  I was agreeing.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 28, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> AGAIN, I will restate:
> 
> The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace.



True, as a general threat to Liberty and because it could be used as an engine of oppression by a President / usurper / tyrant.



Bfgrn said:


> The role of the militia was_ to_ protect the state,



True, _*when the state is acting within its constitutional limits*_.  A government that is operating within the principles of its establishment shall enjoy the protections of the Constitution including prosecution of citizens for the crimes of sedition, treason and insurrection (and terrorist acts).



Bfgrn said:


> not protect the citizens _from_ the state.



Wrong.  A government that has violated the principles of its establishment and exceeded the express powers granted to it, is no longer --- _the government established by the Constitution_ ---  it is something else, something foreign and is not to be afforded the protections of the compact it is violating.  That now illegitimate government is subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers the people originally conferred. 

If this de-powering cannot be done peacefully, then circumstances demand, "the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . ", employing the fully retained, forever held out from the powers of government, "right of the people to keep and bear arms".



Bfgrn said:


> Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.



You were amused reading Federalist 29 without recognizing that the same fear (engine of oppression, etc.) held for "standing armies" was felt for the militia UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . .  "apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."  

Federalist 29 was written to rebut the opposition to Art I, §8, cl. 16 granting the federal government powers over the state's militias.  The state's didn't want a standing army and hey disn't want their militias to be under the command and control oF the federal government, FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.

As I said, you are just too smart for your own good; you know so much you can't even comprehend what you are reading.  You should have been laughing at yourself for believing the anti-gun revisionist history that "our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check" . . .  As I said, Federalist 29 has nothing except butt-hurt for anti-liberty people like you.



Bfgrn said:


> PROVE it...



Arrogance that springs from abject ignorance is annoying; arrogance that springs from purposeful misrepresentation and deception to serve an anti-constitution political agenda, is offensive and despicable.


.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 28, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN, I will restate:
> ...



Like I said before, liberals of our founder's generation had fear filled conservatives to deal with, just like today. Always creating monsters...

And, when the Federalists was authored, there was no Constitution. That was the purpose OF the Federalists.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 28, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



How idiotic.  Lol.  What a completely idiotic thing to say.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 28, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



IOW, you're getting your arse handed to you on a platter by a poster who knows what he's talking about, unlike yourself who is blinded by your dumb liberal ideology.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 28, 2015)

Abatis said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN, I will restate:
> ...



Great posts, you!    You are very smart.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Abatis said:
> ...



There is no secret that conservatism is based on fear. 

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.
H. L. Mencken


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yeah, sure.    It is not FEAR to acknowledge the truth.  In fact, I would say that you liberals are in fear.  You fear your fellow Americans.  You are also not very bright, wanting to arm a rogue country with nukes.  This is not based in FEAR but in common sense.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



There is even scientific proof...

*Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains*

Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one's opinions -- freedom of conscience -- is considered sacrosanct.

But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Ba-ha-ha!


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Self reflection has never been a right wing trait. 

Even this thread is proof... read the fear filled scenarios trying to justify being armed to the teeth, and clinging to guns.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Um, no.  You and your side are the ones who demonstrate "fear."  You fear your fellow law-abiding citizens.  You fear the right to bear arms.  Sad, really.  

Most gun homicides are committed by gang members . . . criminals.  Criminals who do not obey laws.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Yet it is gun clingers who fear background checks that help prevent 'criminals' from buying guns. I have said more than once on this thread that I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. You gun nuts have a HEARING problem too.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Or the truth...that the liberal center of the brain for truth, rationality, facts and common sense is grossly underdeveloped.....hence the resistance to reality, the truth, facts and common sense...........and the part of the brain that protects the  self concept of the individual is so over developed it contributes to a false sense of superiority........

It explains why, when there is, in fact, crime each and every day, the typical liberal believes it does not exist, so there is no need to take common sense, precautions in case these situation arise.......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



1) we know that a gun registry has been used to ban guns in general in Europe and Australia, and particular classes of guns in our country....California and New York in particular...and that a Universal background check system by design, would need registration of guns to be implemented...in order to track private sales of guns...

2) We know the current system creates more false positives against normal, law abiding citizens than it stops criminals..

3) We know that even with the current background system, criminals and mass shooters still get the guns they want or need to use...whenever they want or need them....

So it isn't that we fear them per se, but we know how anti gunners think and what they want and what methods they will use to achieve their goals...we also know the truth, that background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns....


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You can't just make shit up and call it facts....

The study of the brain not only found that conservatives have larger fear centers (amygdala), conservatives have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is responsible for courage and optimism.

Liberal brains have more gray matter associated with anticipation and decision-making.

Brain study reveals right-wing conservatives have larger primitive amygdala Daily Mail Online


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



No, you are wrong again.  You give yourself away by referring to them as "gun clingers" and "gun nuts."    YOU are the one who is living in fear, I think.  "Gun nuts" as you so lovingly refer to them as, are concerned with preserving our rights as citizens.  The 2nd Amendment is a constitutional right, no matter HOW much you try to downplay it.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




You know...in the past...scientists like the ones you quote explained the intelligence of blacks as inferior to whites because of the shapes of their heads....it is interesting to see lefty scientists are still up to their old tricks...........do you want to discuss what lefty scientists were up to in Germany in the 1940s?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Hee-hee!  I think it's hilarious that you are SO biased that you would buy into this stuff.    How about sticking to the topic here?  

Why are you so angry about your fellow Americans practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms?  Hmm?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



More bullshit posing as facts...

*A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal*

1) *A specific ban on a gun registry *

Some opponents of the amendment claimed that the legislation would have thrown gun owners into a national registry so the government could keep track of them.

"If your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be) ... you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry," the lobbying group Gun Owners of America said. (The group added the name of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, one of the co-sponsors.)

Actually, the amendment outlawed any such registry. In fact, a registry was _already _outlawed, and the amendment extra outlawed it.

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

• "The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."

• "Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

another paranoid thread about guns, from both sides.

Why do I need a gun? Why do you need freedom of speech?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



This is not 'the past'...that right wing "science" was based on fear...

This is actual MRI scans of the human brain.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  It seems to me, and is obvious to anyone reading, that it is YOUR side who is living in fear.  The only problem is, your fear is irrational.  You have a bigger chance of drowning in your backyard pool than you have of being shot.  Especially when you consider that most legal gun owners do obey laws and are NOT criminals . . . that much being obvious by the fact that they are LEGAL gun owners.  Lol.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




oh yes, science you disagree with doesn't count does it? LOL


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




and we know how the gun grabbers think....



> • "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."




that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




No, you're wrong on that point. Background checks for individual sales are easy without any sort of registration.

It's simple. If I sell you a gun without a background check and you never commit a crime with that gun, it's no problem, and no one would ever even know.

But if I sell you that gun, and you DO commit a crime with it, you get charged with a further crime if you can't tell the police where you got the gun, and if you tell them from me, and when they come and ask I can't prove that I ran a background check on you, then I get charged with a crime.

As long as the purchaser never commits a crime, the state neither knows, nor cares , if the background check was done. It's only illegal IF the gun is used in a crime.

Done and done.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Well I just told you in the last post that I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. 

Maybe it is not a hearing problem...maybe it is a seeing problem...but I suspect the problem is cognitive.

I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

*More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends*

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Shit, some of my family members , I'd INSIST on a background check.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Sorry, but I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums.    You are not fooling me.  You are what we refer to as an "incremental" gun banner.  And plenty of liberal "thinkers" would just love to take away our 2nd amendment right.  It is important that we defend ALL of our rights equally, even the ones you may not like.  I'm sure that you can figure out the WHY.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



"science" once claimed the earth was flat...

There is no doubt about the MRI results. The unanswered question is cause. Is it hereditary or environmental?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Thank you for proving my point...

*Study: Conservatives have larger “fear center” *


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




oh true, I discount past science as well. I was talking about modern science.Modern science has some interesting things to say about gays and blacks, for instance, do you dispute the findings?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background  checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



Cite?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




And again...they create a "solution" that is unecessary...it is already against the law to sell a gun to a felon..."knowingly" so if you don't know someone you can...right now, today, without this law, ask them to go to a gun store and get a background check done before you sell them a gun....right now...today.......and if the guy says, "I can't pass a background check" and you sell them the gun....you are a crimnal, and face federal prison time.....

so again, the Universal Background check is not necessary because:

 1) the current system can deal with the current issues

 and

 2) criminals already get around the current background checks in ways that will void a universal background check as well....thus making Universal background checks stupid.....

But the gun grabbers know that.....don't they....so today...they want Universal Background Checks because it tightens the noose......then, when that doesn't stop criminals from getting guns, which it won't as I have shown, then they will say "Well........I guess since criminals actually get their guns from family members who can pass background checks....we will need to check backgrounds of family members to prevent criminals from getting guns"

We know how gun grabbers think, we know what they want, and we know their methods.......

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment will be surrendered to their irrational fear of average citizens.....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




I don't want to derail this thread by citing a bunch of other studies on non related topics, you really can't just concede that those studies exist?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




My thread...I won't mind.....I won't tell......


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



Concede WHAT? I don't know what you are talking about..


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





> Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.



And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........



> investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.



Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......



> These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.



again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....fucking arrest them now...you don't need a fucking new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right fucking now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

> Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.



If a Federally Licensed Dealer is posing as a "private" seller to avoid conducting current background checks......arrest his fucking ass and strip his license and throw him in jail........all of which you can do now without "Super dooper" universal background checks.........right?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Are you a liar or obtuse? Under current laws, private sellers are NOT required to run a background check at gun shows. But dealers POSING as private sellers are circumventing the law. 

The Manchin-Toomey gun proposal would close the gun show loophole.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



But it doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons.  The biggest problems lie within the inner city communities where gangs are seemingly allowed to run rampant.  That is where the biggest homicide rates stem from, and those people do not go through legal means to obtain weapons anyways.  

However, I don't think I would be opposed to such a background check.  If I was a seller of a weapon, and I happened to sell one to a dangerous person who then used it to commit a murder, I would probably feel much guilt about that.  So I would not be opposed to closing that loophole.  However, DO NOT expect that it will affect homicide rates in any way.  That would be more just protection for the seller.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> No, you're wrong on that point. Background checks for individual sales are easy without any sort of registration.
> It's simple. If I sell you a gun without a background check and you never commit a crime with that gun, it's no problem, and no one would ever even know.
> But if I sell you that gun, and you DO commit a crime with it, you get charged with a further crime if you can't tell the police where you got the gun....


Only if the DA thinks he can prove that I got the gun from you after the background check was necessary, absent said check.    
How does he do that?


> and if you tell them from me, and when they come and ask I can't prove that I ran a background check on you, then I get charged with a crime.


Only if the DA thinks he can prove that you actually sold the gun after the background check was necessary, absent said check.  
How does he do that?


> As long as the purchaser never commits a crime, the state neither knows, nor cares...


The state does not care if someone breaks criminal law so long as he doesn't break another law after that?


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So, you want to fill up jails and clog up the system with people who failed to perform a background check?  Oh way to go to get the REAL criminals off the streets!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're wrong on that point. Background checks for individual sales are easy without any sort of registration.
> ...




^ Prime example of a one issue moron who is unwilling to compromise at all.

_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._

Registration would not infringe, so your dumb ass probably should be willing to make some concessions that would negate the need to require registration.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




They still can't sell guns to felons...that is against the law right now.......and dealers posing as private sellers are Breaking the law since they aren't private sellers...are they...so they are....right now....breaking the law......right now....without universal background checks......right now.......so you send in police officers....ask the dealer posing as a private seller to sell you a gun...run his name and find out he is a licensed dealer....selling as a private seller....and fucking arrest him for breaking the current law.......right?

As to private sales not requiring a background check....sooooo what.  They can't sell to felons........go to gun shows and pose as private sellers.....when a felon comes up to the guy pretending to be a private seller, you ask the guy...do you mind if I do a background check...if the guy says yes...I can't pass one... and then still actually buys a weapon, illegally, arrest him...........no need for universal background checks, since that can be done now without the universal background check....then......you pose as a felon and go to the private dealer...and tell him....I am a felon and can't pass a background check.....if he still sells the guy a gun.....fucking arrest him too......no need for universal background checks....

There is no need to make a new "super duper" background check law....law enforcement already has all the tools they need to stop felons from getting guns.....

And right now...background checks are voided by having people who can pass background checks buy the gun for the person who can't ......this is illegal...that means it is against the law.....so....

You pass the super duper universal background check where private sellers must do background checks at gun shows....the same people who can pass and actual background check from before...go in and get the new super duper universal background check......and then sell or give the gun to the felon who couldn't pass the original background check...

or they simply steal the gun, thus avoiding the current background check and the new, super duper background check.......

what part of all of this is so fucking hard for you anti-gun nuts to understand.................

All you have to do is if you catch a felon with a gun.....fucking arrest them and put them in jail for a long time.........end of story...easy peasy solution and no background check upgrade is needed......

What morons......


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




Registration is the first step in a ban or in confiscation of categories of guns....ask New York, and California and the other places that have used registration as a means of getting guns out of the hands of citizens....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




As a responsible seller you can...right now...tell the buyer that before you sell the gun both you and he have to go to a local gun store or police station and run his background.....no universal background law required.......

If you are not a responsible seller, and think a 600 dollar gun sale is worth several years of federal prison time....you would sell the gun to the guy who says he can't pass a background check anyway.....right now.....with the current system that states that felons can't buy guns........


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Possibly correct, which is why I favor gun owners themselves saying "you know we need to do the responsible thing" and implementing a system to do background checks in the manner I suggested above.

Look, I really believe the gays are just burning bridges left and right because they don't want to compromise, they want to FORCE everyone to accept them, like them, do business with them, etc etc and we are really seeing a backlash against that type of mentality, people are just getting sick of people who want everything THEIR way with no room for compromise.

I don't like seeing gun owners go down the same path. You and I both know that going down to your local gunshop and paying them a few bucks to do a background check on a private gun sale would do ZERO harm to anyone. While at the same time making millions of Americans breathe a little easier, and yes possibly even keep a few undesirables from buying guns. Its the responsible thing to do.

That being said, I think that in a day and time when you get online and get a credit card with a $10K credit limit in 60 seconds, a 7 day waiting period is ridiculous.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




We have already made all the concessions necessary to stop felons with guns.....everything from this point forward is gun control by incremental laws......we give them Universal background checks....and they still break the law by stealing guns and having people who can buy guns with a background check sell or give them that gun....so now they come back and say...oh yeah.....they are still getting illegal guns we need the next, really really, super duper background check law that this time, we promise, is all we want......you know.....to stop illegal gun sales......

We have been here before......


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



True, but that is ONLY if the guy tells you he couldn't pass a background check. Most people wouldn't volunteer that information.

If you sell it to him and you can convince a DA that you didn't know he wouldn't pass a background check, you have no problems.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




If I sell a gun to a stranger I am already going to do that.....the guy with no ethics is already breaking current background check laws by selling to people he doesn't know are felons....so your reasonableness is pointless and is granting the anti gunners something they don't need....

So no........


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




You HAVE TO acknowledge that the internet changes everything. People ARE buying and selling guns from and to complete strangers that they know nothing about , other than they want to buy/sell a gun.  Those sales should require a background check


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




Any seller today will ask if he can own a gun since selling to him and not knowing will bring in the feds regardless if you knew or not...they will turn your life upside down until you prove you didn't know....they will give you an anal exam...they will try their best to put you in jail....and you will spend thousands of dollars on legal fees if they try to prove you knew....

So again, no...there is no need for super duper background checks.......


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




do what?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




and in order to pick up that gun it must be delivered to a gun store...where they have to...right now...today....do background checks......they have to do a background check to sell that gun.........even on the internet.......

If you don't send it to a gun store...you are right now breaking the law............so if you sell to someone without going to a gun dealer you can be arrested...right now......without super duper background checks.......


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



This is very true, so you would think it would be in the seller's best interest to have that piece of paper that says "passed background check"

I'm a bit confused on your stance here, you claim that responsible gun owners will do the background checks anyway, so there is no need for a law that requires it.

Responsible drinkers don't drink and drive, and yet we have laws against drinking and driving, etc etc.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Set up internet stings....sell guns to people who won't go to a gun dealer...when they come to get the gun...arrest them.......

Set up internet stings....say you want to buy a gun...if they won't send the gun to a real gun dealer to pick it up and get a background check, when they show up....arrest them...

Done and done....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Untrue man. Do you have Facebook? I can go to a local yardsale site right now and agree to buy an AR15 from a guy who lives less than 10 miles from me. Do you think that guy is going to demand I meet him anywhere? Of course not. He just wants money, and there are many many sellers like him out there all over the country.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Set up internet stings....sell guns to people who won't go to a gun dealer...when they come to get the gun...arrest them.......
> 
> Set up internet stings....say you want to buy a gun...if they won't send the gun to a real gun dealer to pick it up and get a background check, when they show up....arrest them...
> 
> Done and done....



Arrest them for what? There is no current law requiring them to perform the background check, that is what you are not understanding. I have lots of guns. I could list them on Craigslist or whatever and sell them, and there is no current law requiring a background check


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




But we don't have bars running background checks on their customers before they drink...do we...and that isn't a right.....you are arrested when you are caught breaking existing law....we do not have the bar run a criminal check for DUIs do we..........now that I have said that I regret it.....too many people will want to do that now as well......



> This is very true, so you would think it would be in the seller's best interest to have that piece of paper that says "passed background check"



For their own safety, yes......but again...they can do that now...without super duper background checks........


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


^ 
Prime example of someone who knows he cannot answer the questions put to him regarding his position and so runs away from same.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Set up internet stings....sell guns to people who won't go to a gun dealer...when they come to get the gun...arrest them.......
> ...




You have to send them to a gun store to transfer them....then before they release those guns they must do a background check...right now......

If you sell those guns on Craigslist......and don't do that...you can be arrested...right now.......and then you have to prove you aren't a straw seller of guns....and you don't need to have super duper universal background checks......


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Correct, they CAN do it, I prefer a law that says the MUST do it. You have agreed that responsible gun owners will do it eithe rway, so I must ask, what the fuck are you arguing about here? THe right to be an irresponsible gun owner?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


By definition it is impossible to compromise with the anti-gun loons because they have nothing to give us in return for us giving away part of our rights.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Set up internet stings....sell guns to people who won't go to a gun dealer...when they come to get the gun...arrest them.......
> ...




This is what you arrest them for......you send in your undercover cop and ask to buy a gun and you tell them, openly...I can't pass a background check...I have an old felony conviction....if they say I don't care let's do this anyway...you arrest them since they now know you are a felon.......

You set up an undercover table at a gun show and ask each customer trying to buy a gun to go through a background check...if they say they can't pass the check you say...hey...let's do this anyway..and if they buy the gun anyway...you fucking arrest them since they know they can't own the gun and have just broken the law.......

no universal background check needed.....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No you can not be. Quote the law man.

The current law states that you must ASK the person if they could pass a background check. How many people do you think even do that? Then of the ones who do ask, how many buyers who couldn't do you really think are going to say "no man I couldn't pass a background check?"

If you ask, and the person lies to you, you are off the hook. Worse, it would be virtually impossible to prove you lied if you said you asked when you hadn't.

You're being dishonest here. You know there are a lot of sale going on where no one is asked about background checks , and that proving no one was asked would be virtually impossible.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




That is just dumb.

Let's get rid of DUI limits as well. We'll just stop cars once in awhile and ask the driver if he's drunk. If he says "yes" we'll arrest him, if not , he can go on his way.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




no....there is no need for this law and it is intended to trip up responsible gun owners because if it is a law, and they don't do it they are now felons...not innocent people.........just for selling a lawful product.....

The gun grabbers want those innocent people tripped up and arrested........as examples to other gun owners.....

I have already shown that criminals will ignore your new, super duper universal background check as easily as they bypass the current one....they will have relatives who can pass the check buy the gun, or they will steal them.....so there is at the first point...no reason for universal background checks other than to trip up law abiding citizens.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




And I just showed you it doesn't matter....except if you want to trip up law abiding citizens......which is the goal...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



How are you an innocent person who gets tripped up if you break the law, be definition, you would no longer be an innocent person.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



And I ask again, how would an innocent person get tripped up? You have previously claimed that responsible gun owners are already doing the background checks. Were you lying when you claimed that?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




What do you think they do now............if they catch a guy who is drunk they arrest him........right?  That is already how it works...right?  They don't force bars to do criminal background checks on drinkers to see if they have DUIs and even if they did....the can still freaking sell them alcohol...right?

And that isn't even a protected right...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




The analogy would be sobriety checkpoints. Do you favor getting rid of them? I mean there is no doubt that they often trip up "innocent" people.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

or what about voter ID? Voting is certainly a right, and there is ZERO doubt that requiring ID has tripped up some innocent folks. Should we do away with voter ID laws?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Innocent people get tripped up all the time with these gun laws and their unintended consequences.....by making them complex, they catch the innocent...the woman with the concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania...drives into New Jersey....tells the police officer who did the traffick  stop she has a permit and a gun...but faces a felony because she is only legal in Penn.   The security guard, legally permitted to own and carry a gun...except it can't be loaded....forgets to unload it in his car.....faces a felony.....

The old man with the revolutionary war pistol........has it in his car, unloaded...it is still a pistol and he gets arrested for having an illegal gun.........

All of these people eventually got off....but spent thousands of dollars on lawyers and weeks of fear about being sent to prison for not complying with overly complex, byzantine laws designed to trip them up...by anti gunners....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




yes....I don't like sobriety check points....you catch DUIs as they drive....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Innocent people get tripped up all the time with these gun laws and their unintended consequences.....by making them complex, they catch the innocent...the woman with the concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania...drives into New Jersey....tells the police officer who did the traffick  stop she has a permit and a gun...but faces a felony because she is only legal in Penn.   The security guard, legally permitted to own and carry a gun...except it can't be loaded....forgets to unload it in his car.....faces a felony.....
> 
> The old man with the revolutionary war pistol........has it in his car, unloaded...it is still a pistol and he gets arrested for having an illegal gun.........
> 
> All of these people eventually got off....but spent thousands of dollars on lawyers and weeks of fear about being sent to prison for not complying with overly complex, byzantine laws designed to trip them up...by anti gunners....



I'm sorry, but in all three cases you mentioned those people were not innocent. They broke the law, unintentionally for sure, but they did break the law. Circumstances prevailed and they were released, but that doesn't change the fact that they were NOT innocents.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




and voter ID laws?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> or what about voter ID? Voting is certainly a right, and there is ZERO doubt that requiring ID has tripped up some innocent folks. Should we do away with voter ID laws?




No...because voter id simply identifies you for who you are... a background check is a bar from practicing a right before you practice it...on the idea that you are a criminal first and have to prove you are not a criminal...in fact...background checks are a violation of the 5th amendment......against self incrimination...as the Supreme Court has shown when it said criminals can't be forced to under go them.......since they would be incriminating themselves....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




Okay Smarter.....I hate to put this idea out there ...but here it is....

We pass a law that says that every bar in the country must do a criminal background check on each and every customer to determine if they have a DUI before they serve them.........every customer...it is not a right to drink at a bar...

So...you support this right?   It would also scoop up felons...they can't drink in bars either...right?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > or what about voter ID? Voting is certainly a right, and there is ZERO doubt that requiring ID has tripped up some innocent folks. Should we do away with voter ID laws?
> ...



how dumb are you , for real? Using that argument I could EASILY argue that requiring someone to prove they are who they claim they are when they show up to vote would be a violation of their fifth amendment rights, because if they are NOT who they say they are and can't prove it, they they have committed a crime.

And by the way, you obviously have little understanding of the ruling in Printz v. United States if you think the SCOTUS rules that backgrounds checks in general were unconstitutional. In effect all they ruled was that the federal government could not FORCE the states to comply.

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

THis is why the states regulate the background checks, even though they use federal databases to do so.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




Then you agree, any background check is a violation of rights...if you oppose voter id laws on those grounds...glad we agree on background checks....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



I would totally favor a law which prevented someone who has a DUI conviction from being served at a bar. Absolutely, completely, in fact I would give large sums of money to any candidate bold enough to suggest it. DUI is a scourge on this country.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



EHHH , I don't oppose voter id. I support it 100%

Sir, you are not going enjoy debating with me much I assure you, because see I use logic and principles when determining my positions I don't just hold to liberal or conservative dogma and leave principles at the door like most here do.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




Yes...you are a real genius....I have shown that any background check, both the current one and the new, super duper universal background check is easily gotten around by criminals...right now...they either steal their guns or get people who can pass current and future background checks buy the guns for them....thus voiding background checks for all but law abiding citizens who won't use them to commit crimes anyway........

so...your proposed solution solves nothing...yet you cling to it...simply to mollify anti gunners who will get more draconian if they don't get what they want...and who, from past experience have already found a way to subvert the intent of the universal background check to make it harder and more dangerous for law abiding citizens to own guns..

and who...when it is then shown that universal background checks solved nothing, and that criminals still get their guns regardless of the new super duper background checks...will then come back for their real objective.......universal background checks on sales between family members...and gun registration to enforce it.....since universal background checks still won't stop criminals from getting guns......and thus the next step must be taken....

We know how gun grabbers think, we know what they want and we know how they plan to get there.....

So keep complementing yourself...no one else is.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




Yes.....your true colors are flying free and clear..............


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




And? For God's sake I was an Army MP for 20+ years. I'm an authoritarian within the framework of freedom. I admit that.

I believe Americans should be as free as they would like as long as they are not harming others and I try to base my EVERY opinion on that basis. I don't and won't hide who I am.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....

The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....
> 
> The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration



SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks. They are unlikely to reverse.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




I appreciate your honesty...but you guys never really hide anyway......it is the political types who hide their true motives...and why I don't trust the laws they want .....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

From the Haynes decision and why I won't support Universal background checks...



> Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: *a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished.* In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.



That sort of stupidity is at the heart of Background checks...................


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

And this is an early example of 1) gun registration in the U.S. targeted at Citizens, and 2) unintended consequences that were actually intended.....

The Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination and Gun Registration

During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, "I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble." Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings' desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found "in the coolness and calmness of retrospect" to be somewhat different in their consequences. [5]

*Unfortunately, Rep. Vinson's concern about law-abiding people running afoul of registration laws, while criminals run free, turned out to be prophetic. The same year as the Haynes decision, the New York City Gun Control Law was challenged in the courts*. The statute sought to bring shotguns and rifles under the same sort of licensing restrictions as handguns. Edward Grimm and a number of others filed suit against the City of New York, seeking to overturn the city ordinance. Grimm, et. al., raised a number of objections to the law during the trial, most of which were based on the Second Amendment. After the trial but before the decision had been completed, the Haynes decision appeared. Grimm's attorneys pointed out the implications for New York City's gun registration requirement. The trial court held that the legislative intent of the law was:





that there existed an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals and persons not qualified to use these weapons and that the ease with which the weapons could be obtained was of concern... [6]
Yet on the subject of the Haynes decision:





In this court's reading of the Haynes decision, it is inapposite to the statute under consideration here. The registration requirement in Haynes was "...directed principally at those persons who have obtained possession of a firearm without complying with the Act's other requirements, and who therefore are immediately threatened by criminal prosecutions... They are unmistakably persons 'inherently suspect of criminal activities.'"... The City of New York's Gun Control Law is not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities. It is regulatory in nature. Accordingly, Haynes does not stand as authority for plaintiffs' position. [7]
*In three pages, the court went from claiming that the registration law was intended to stop "an evil in the misuse of rifles and shotguns by criminals" to admitting that it was "not aimed at persons inherently suspect of criminal activities."*


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Oh, I don't trust politicians either bruh. I'd want the law written as clearly as possible. And I acknowledge that your fears are not unfounded. I'm saying , there are too many people selling guns to just whomever, and that needs to stop.If requiring you to run a back ground check has any effect on that ( and it would) then thats what we should do )

I will say this however, I think that a concealed carry permit and or a valid hunting license should include the background check, renewed yearly and if you have either of those you should be able to just show your ID to either a private gun owner or a gun store and be able to purchase your weapon with no further ado.

Now that is fair isnt it? Felons certainly shouldn't be obtaining either a hunting license OR a concealed carry permit anyway. I think you would agree on that.

It wouldn't take but a software change to accomplish either. Simple .


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

I believe in Constitutional carry.....no permit required...felons can't own or carry guns right now...if they are caught they should be sent to prison for at least a decade.....no muss, no fuss, no fees needed for law abiding citizens.....what about felons and bow hunting?

Any extra taxes or fees for the owning or carrying of guns is essentially the equivalent of a poll tax......


----------



## Abatis (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks. They are unlikely to reverse.



What case was that?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> I believe in Constitutional carry.....no permit required...felons can't own or carry guns right now...if they are caught they should be sent to prison for at least a decade.....no muss, no fuss, no fees needed for law abiding citizens.....what about felons and bow hunting?
> 
> Any extra taxes or fees for the owning or carrying of guns is essentially the equivalent of a poll tax......



Um I was talking about CONCEALED carry, which does - and should - require additional precautions over open carry. That's why there is no open carry license. Only for concealed carry.

And as for additional fees, who said that? I didn't say you HAD to have either a CCW or hunting license to buy a gun. I said that either should be able to be used in lieu of having a background check done each and every time you wish to buy a gun. Yes, I'm sure the fee for ether would go up some if they had to run a background check. So be it.

Do you see what I'm saying here. You are as inflexible as the militant gays are for their cause; and guess what? They feel just as righteous as you do.

Be the bigger person. Admit that yes, there is room for compromise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > In fact...background checks are more than likely unConstitutional...if gun registration and previous Supreme Court rulings are any measure....
> ...


This is a lie.
Disagree?
Cite the case and the holding.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

Abatis said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > SCOTUS has already ruled on background checks. They are unlikely to reverse.
> ...



Printz v. US.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


False.
The constitutionality of backgrounds checks in and of  themselves was never part of the case and so was not ruled upon by the court.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




It's not a lie, and I"ve cited the case 3 times already. Printz v United States 1997

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia 

The Court ruled that the FEDS couldn't regulate background checks, but states could.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


Again, false.
The questron in Printz was if the federal government could force states to enforce federal law.
The constitutionality of the background checks themselves was not part of the legal question..
IOW this was 10th amendment, not a 2nd amendment challenge.
If not a lie, then ignorance.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

how about this one then M14?

_Abramski v. United States_


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> how about this one then M14?
> _Abramski v. United States_


This is a ruling regarding straw purchases not background checks.

Holding:  Regardless whether the actual buyer could have purchased the gun, a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself makes a material misrepresentation punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits knowingly making false statements “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of a sale of a gun.”


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 29, 2015)

OMG I give up, M14 you are retarded. You don't even understand shit.

Go read EITHER of those rulings, there is a reason the plaintiffs ignored the question of whether background checks were constitutional. then go read the majority decision in both cases and see that the authoring Justice defended the authority to perform a background check.

You are living in a fantasy world if you truly believe the Court is going to rule background checks unconstitutional. And worse, in light of recent shootings you make all gun owners look like fools when you screech that no one should be back grounded.

And to top it all off you are too stupid to see the direct comparison to voter ID laws.

Do us all a favor and end your life M14, you truly are too stupid to waste resources on.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> OMG I give up, M14 you are retarded. You don't even understand shit.


Fact:
Neither of the cases you cited can be said to hold that background checks re constitutional as in neither of the cases was the issue of background checks part of the legal question before the court.
Fact.
In this regard, you are either lying or ignorant.

Please do tell us which.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



You truly are a moron. And you argument is childish. WHO in their right fucking mind would put their name on a gun for a criminal? The girl in Webster NY who bought the weapon for a guy that couldn't pass a background check and used it to kill two fireman is going to prison for 8 YEARS.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > I believe in Constitutional carry.....no permit required...felons can't own or carry guns right now...if they are caught they should be sent to prison for at least a decade.....no muss, no fuss, no fees needed for law abiding citizens.....what about felons and bow hunting?
> ...




we have compromised...we now have background checks for gun purchases.....and now that isn't enough,and the gun grabbers are coming back for more background checks because the first background checks they wanted didn't stop gun crime like they said it would....so now they want more....and then, as I pointed out, since the next level of background checks still won't stop criminals from getting guns they will come back for more.....

thanks for showing that we have already compromised and seen that it doesn't matter....

so screw them.....not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment...and we have all the laws we need...right now....just fucking enforce them when you catch bad guys using guns....


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 29, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



They are incremental gun banners.  They want to do it sneaky and in steps.  While I don't necessarily disagree with background checks, I certainly do not trust liberals.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 29, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




see...do you realize you just voided your own post?  You asked....Who in their fucking right mind.....apparently this girl actually did......and now may go to prison....there you answered your own question....and just showed why background checks are stupid and don't work, and how criminals actually get their guns......you accomplished quite a bit with one post.....


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



The vast majority of people are not that stupid. The premise is moronic.

Let's be clear, crystal. YOU and your ilk are aiding and abetting criminals, murderers and legitimizing black market gun dealers.

There is no need for illegal black market gun dealers to operate in dark alleys, out of the trunk of cars or any other inherently dangerous way of conducting sales.

Illegal gun dealers can operate in broad daylight, with police protection at gun shows. And criminals have no need to risk the dangers of buying guns in dark alleys, out of the trunk of cars or any other inherently dangerous place. They can buy guns with police protection, receive expert advice, discounts and not have to pay black market prices.

All because you and your ilk are infested with fear, and have ZERO regard for law abiding citizens.


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 30, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Most who are planning to use a gun to commit crimes would NOT do that because the gun could be traced right back to them.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




You're wrong on one point.

The vast majority of Americans in fact ARE stupid.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> You're wrong on one point.
> The vast majority of Americans in fact ARE stupid.


Huh.



SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> OMG I give up, M14 you are retarded. You don't even understand shit.


Fact:
Neither of the cases you cited can be said to hold that background checks re constitutional as in neither of the cases was the issue of background checks part of the legal question before the court.
Fact.
In this regard, you are either lying or ignorant.

Please do tell us which.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





> Illegal gun dealers can operate in broad daylight, with police protection at gun shows. And criminals have no need to risk the dangers of buying guns in dark alleys, out of the trunk of cars or any other inherently dangerous place. They can buy guns with police protection, receive expert advice, discounts and not have to pay black market prices.



How dumb are you.....the police simply have to go to gun shows and set up stings.....and besides.....the people selling guns at gun shows can just slip the illegal gun buyer a card and tell them...look, I'll meet you outside, across the street....and sell them the gun their....without background checks...that is if they want to risk federal prison time....

Dude.......background checks do not stop people selling guns to criminals if they don't care about the consequences.......you can make your background check triple, super duper and they will avoid them the same way the do now....they will have someone who can pass a background check buy the gun.....someone who doesn't know it is against the law......and there are lots of those people.....or they will steal them.....

so again, background checks only work for those who want to obey the law....here and in other countries......and the people who can pass a background check and will give those guns to their gang member boyfriend......they can walk into a real gun store and do it...why?  Because they can pass the fucking background check........so it voids you super duper triple pixie dust universal background check......before you even implement it.......


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



No they're not...







The extremist on this thread are 2aguy, M14 Shooter and ChrisL...

They NEED to paint people like me as a 'gun grabber', because common sense gun laws are the antithesis of their existence. I support the right to bear arms to protect yourself, your family and your property. I don't sanction allowing criminals to buy guns easily, or in a protected environment. They SHOULD be forced to buy a gun in an inherently dangerous situation.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




This poll is a lie...they don't explain the facts,of background checks to the people...so people who pay no attention to the issue...and tactics of gun grabbers, accept it at face value.....explain that it will require registration, that it will force people to get background checks to give guns to family members....then see what they say....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




I have a challenge for you...get the actual poll question they asked......link to it and let's analyze the wording...shall we.....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

Do you support background checks if they would require registration of firearms and their owners?

do you support background checks if they require you to perform them to give a gun to a relative or friend?

Do you support background checks of it means you can no longer loan guns to friends and family without a background check?


----------



## turtledude (Mar 30, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


you really appear to know almost nothing about gun shows.


----------



## turtledude (Mar 30, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


there is nothing common sense about your desire for an unconstitutional law that doesn't impact criminals


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



He is a scared.  That's all.    It's funny how they ALL say they support the right.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

here is a nice look at background checks...

Why universal background checks won t work TheHill

Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.

The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7 percent).



**************

To achieve any degree of success, the “universal” background check system would require universal gun registration. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has already acknowledged this, which doomed the bill before it was drafted. Despite denials by some politicians, registration has already led to gun confiscation in the United States – in New York, California, Chicago, District of Columbia. Voters are wary of repeating the same process in their home towns. National registration to support “universal” background checks is almost universally repugnant. This is the insurmountable hill representatives and senators face.

So....phrase these facts into an actual poll question and see what percent of support you get.....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




When a guy chooses a name based on ONE issue, it's clear he's a nutter.

You're a nutter.

"I should be able to go down to Wal Mart and buy minigun or an UZI or a flame thrower if I want by God"


LOL, sorry about your tiny penis bruh.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




I do NOT support ChrisL's right to own a firearm, she cray cray


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



I'm on the fence about background checks.  However, some have posted links to some really shady reasons why they deny a person the right.  That is wrong and unconstitutional.  I know that here in MA, at one time, they had the "right" to deny anyone a license at the chief of police discretion.  I don't trust the government enough to let them decide for me whether or not I can practice one of my constitutionally guaranteed rights.  

At the same time, if it is speedy and fairly applied, I wouldn't necessarily be against background checking.  I think I would even do my own if I was to sell a weapon to a person I didn't know, just because I wouldn't want it on MY conscience if a person was a criminal and perhaps had killed before or committed some other serious crime.  So . . . this is a tough one for me.


----------



## turtledude (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




I trust her to own a nuke over your possession of a squirt gun or for that matter, a battery powered vibrator


----------



## ChrisL (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Lol.    Thanks sweetie!  You must be responding to one of the children from the Flamer zone.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



LOL and why is that? Based off her agreeing with you on this particular topic? You stupid nuts are hilarious.


By the way, I have HUNDREDS of guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

Why I oppose Universal Background Checks - A turning point


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Do you support background checks if they would require registration of firearms and their owners?
> 
> do you support background checks if they require you to perform them to give a gun to a relative or friend?
> 
> Do you support background checks of it means you can no longer loan guns to friends and family without a background check?



*Do you support background checks if they would require registration of firearms and their owners?*

nope 

*do you support background checks if they require you to perform them to give a gun to a relative or friend?*

nope unenforceable without firearm registration so once more nope 


*Do you support background checks of it means you can no longer loan guns to friends and family without a background check?*

again nope


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 30, 2015)

Sometimes background checks fail, so don't make them mandatory

Sometimes automobile brakes fail, so don't make them mandatory.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




And you say we are a nutter......someone should inform the authorities....sounds like your small penis size just can't be compensated for no matter how many guns you buy.....try the blue pills, the blow up doll you use as a girl friend won't care but you might actually be able to perform with it......HINT:  it is a piece of plastic...not a real woman...it doesn't care that you have almost no penis........


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




I love guns and collect them, and shoot them. I don't feel the need to carry one around with me everywhere I go.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

Why I oppose Universal Background Checks - A turning point


In terms of my own views, I think the biggest thing is that the specter of confiscation reared its ugly head. * As NY governor Cuomo put it, “Confiscation could be an option".* *Also, with the passage of the NY law, citizens were expected to turn in or destroy magazines that were suddenly illegal.  With this remark, the genie left the bottle and it is going to be very difficult to get it back in. * This brings us to the problem with Universal Background Checks.  The idea behind it being that every gun transfer, with few exceptions, requires a background check to be performed.  The idea is obviously an attempt to close what is commonly called, "the gun show loophole", or more formally referred to as face to face transfers.  On the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad idea and may indeed prevent some who should not be allowed access to guns from getting them and may also lead to the arrest and prosecution of some criminals who try.  The problem, as with most things, is that the Devil is in the details. * The most fundamental problem with this proposal is that criminals will continue to ignore it and will still engage in black market transactions. * With approximately millions of guns already in circulation it is easy to see why even in the light of a requirement for background checks that a thriving black market will remain.

In light of the realization of the power possessed by the black markets, how is society to enforce or otherwise make full use of a requirement for Universal Background Checks. * The unfortunately truth is that in the absence of Universal Gun Registration that a Universal Background Check is all but meaningless.  This can't be overemphasized, so let’s repeat it.  In order for a UBC to have any meaning, it requires gun registration and this is a problem. * It is a problem because, as the gun community correctly argues, registration leads to confiscation. There is only one reason for the government or law enforcement to know who has what guns. That they can take them when it has been decided that Joe and Jane Citizen are no longer allowed to have a particular gun and to prevent Joe or Jane from refusing to comply with the forced ban.   *As I mentioned above, thanks to governor Cuomo, this genie is no longer in its bottle.*

I am a member of the online gun forum, defensivecarry.com.  One member of that forum, who goes by the name Hot Guns, claims to be a licensed gun dealer with an FFL.  Hot Guns recently reported that a while back he was subjected to an audit by the BATFE. * Regulations require him to keep copies of the Federal Form 4473 for each firearm purchase; in fact this form is required for each inquiry into the NICS background check system.  Supposedly the NICS records are purged after a period of three months.  Even though these records are supposed to be purged, the auditor had copies of the records going back at least one year and demanded to see the corresponding 4473 forms.  When Hot Guns questioned how and why they were inquiring for these records as they were supposed to have been purged, he received the response from the auditor, "That is what we are supposed to say."  In other words, the records are not purged and the government is using the form 4473 as a backdoor form of registration.*  Apparently this is proving insufficient and some desire to use the recent tragedy to bring registration to the forefront.


So please....we know who you are, we know how you think, we know what you want and we know your tactics....screw you guys....

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.........


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




Tell it to your blow up doll.....it might actually believe you......moron....


----------



## turtledude (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



your choice.  And I respect that.  but don't tell others that they ought to do as you do.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you support background checks if they would require registration of firearms and their owners?
> ...




Exactly....yet you never see the question they ask people about background checks.......


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Why I oppose Universal Background Checks - A turning point
> 
> 
> In terms of my own views, I think the biggest thing is that the specter of confiscation reared its ugly head. * As NY governor Cuomo put it, “Confiscation could be an option".* *Also, with the passage of the NY law, citizens were expected to turn in or destroy magazines that were suddenly illegal.  With this remark, the genie left the bottle and it is going to be very difficult to get it back in. * This brings us to the problem with Universal Background Checks.  The idea behind it being that every gun transfer, with few exceptions, requires a background check to be performed.  The idea is obviously an attempt to close what is commonly called, "the gun show loophole", or more formally referred to as face to face transfers.  On the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad idea and may indeed prevent some who should not be allowed access to guns from getting them and may also lead to the arrest and prosecution of some criminals who try.  The problem, as with most things, is that the Devil is in the details. * The most fundamental problem with this proposal is that criminals will continue to ignore it and will still engage in black market transactions. * With approximately millions of guns already in circulation it is easy to see why even in the light of a requirement for background checks that a thriving black market will remain.
> ...


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




I don't care if others carry concealed. It's the open carry morons who I laugh at.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




But you are really crying on the inside because your blow up doll rejected you again...right...moron....


----------



## turtledude (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



Oh I open carry

at the USPSA or steel matches

at the Olympic Skeet trials

at the ISU Trap matches

in the Quail field


around civilians in an urban environment-no fucking way.  I don't need lots of losers pissing their pants


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




That's the jackass I"m talking about man. The guy who insists on open carrying an AR15 in downtown Dallas. Why? It's stupid.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




actually with open carry you make yourself the initial target when the shit hits the fan


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

turtledude said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




The good thing about an open carry law is that it protects you if you accidentally expose your pistol while you are moving around in the world.....you don't have to worry about getting cited for  "open carry" in a concealed carry state.....the anti gunners are assholes and more than willing to try to get you in legal trouble.....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




no ones getting arrested if their weapon accidentally becomes exposed in a concealed carry state you dork.

They actually cover that in any competent concealed carry course.


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > turtledude said:
> ...




Yeah, try that in Illinois asshole....or Chicago in particular....moron.....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




baby with a tiny penis says what?


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




And asshole...here is Masad Ayoob on the topic......

Massad Ayoob s Blog - OPEN CARRY WHAT S YOUR TAKE - March 10 2015 19 01

*First, because there are some jurisdictions where if the wind blows your coat open and reveals the gun you are legally carrying concealed, a genuinely frightened citizen or vindictive anti-gunner can combine with an anti-gun prosecutor to create a perfect storm of criminal charges for illegal open carry.* Second, because if a good person suddenly becomes a stalking victim or the target of death threats, I don’t want them to have to wait up to 90 days (gun-friendly Florida) or six months (the time it takes before a new resident can even apply for a concealed carry permit in California, which for the most part is decidedly non-gun-friendly).


----------



## turtledude (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




LFI Miamisburg, Ohio-late 1980s guest instructor on the laws of self defense in Ohio


----------



## pismoe (Mar 30, 2015)

why have to talk or explain anything to the law AVE , best that open carry is legal as it covers exactly what 2AGUY says .  Accidently expose your gun , let the people that pizz their pants cry if they like but no explanation to authorities is needed and that's a good thing !!.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 30, 2015)

2aguy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Show me a single case of someone who was carrying a concealed weapon and got charged with open carrying because their weapon became exposed.

You idiot. If that were the case do you realize that you could be charged for open carrying if you ever had to USE your weapon?

Moron.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 30, 2015)

open carry is a good deal .  Now the cops can't say anything AVE !!


----------



## turtledude (Mar 30, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



no such cases in ohio


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 31, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...




Moron.....you are a waste of typing.....what a dipstick....


----------



## 2aguy (Mar 31, 2015)

Hey moron....

Legal Gun Carrier Arrested For Carrying Gun

*Deputy Cox blurted out that he didn’t care if he had a concealed carry permit. He could see the weapon, and that was a violation of the law. * Actually, Florida state law was changed in 2011 to say the brief viewing of a gun in a non-threatening manner was not a violation of their concealed carry laws. For example, if a person is reaching for something in his vehicle, and his gun is exposed for half a second inadvertently, that would not be a violation of their concealed carry laws. Deputy Cox claimed that that half second was way too long, and that he felt threatened by the man who was calm and completely compliant.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 31, 2015)

good find '2AGUY' , no matter what , this arrest crap only needs to happen once to ME for it to be significant !!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 31, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> When a guy chooses a name based on ONE issue, it's clear he's a nutter
> You're a nutter.
> "I should be able to go down to Wal Mart and buy minigun or an UZI or a flame thrower if I want by God"
> LOL, sorry about your tiny penis bruh.


Typical anti-gun loon, only able to argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 1, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



WTF is wrong with you? Why do you constantly LIE? 

You LIES have been debunked once on this thread. Do you think you can get away with continuing to LIE?

A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal PolitiFact

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/Manchin-Toomey.pdf


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 1, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Do you support background checks if they would require registration of firearms and their owners?
> 
> do you support background checks if they require you to perform them to give a gun to a relative or friend?
> 
> Do you support background checks of it means you can no longer loan guns to friends and family without a background check?



*The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act*

Our bill does three major things: 1) expands the existing background check system to cover commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and internet sales; 2) strengthens the existing instant check system by encouraging states to put all their available records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); 3) establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence to study in-depth all the causes of mass violence in our country.

1. Leveling the playing field for gun sales:
• Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a nondealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check.

o Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• Under current law, if you buy a gun online interstate (from one state to another), the gun must be shipped to a licensed dealer, you must go to that dealer and get a background check before you purchase the gun. However, for intrastate (in the same state) sales, no background check is required and you can sell the gun to the person without ever meeting face-to-face.

o Our bill requires that the current system for interstate sales be expanded to cover intrastate sales as well-so all purchasers buying guns online must undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• As under current law, background checks are performed by licensed dealers, and recordkeeping will not change-dealers will keep the records in bound books, like they do now. The federal government cannot keep records.
• Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
• As under current law, temporary transfers do not require background checks, so, for example, you can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements.
• As under current law, transfers between family, friends, and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check.
• Our bill also fixes problems in current law that unfairly limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners by:
o Allowing interstate handgun sales from licensed dealers. Outdated current law only allows interstate sales of rifles and shotguns. This will bring more sales into the background check system.
o Allowing active military to buy firearms in their home states and the state in which they are stationed. Current law restricts them to purchasing only from their duty station.
o Allowing dealer-to-dealer sales at gun shows taking place in a state in which they are not a resident. Currently these sales are only permitted for dealers from the same state in which the gun show is being held.
o Protecting sellers from lawsuits if the buyer is cleared through the expanded background checks system and the weapon is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
o Authorizing the use of a state concealed carry permit that has been issued within the last five years in lieu of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer because background checks are required to receive conceal carry permits.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you support background checks if they would require registration of firearms and their owners?
> ...




How dumb are you....again...80% of illegal guns easily get past the background check for licensed dealers.....either by having friends and family guy the gun because they can pass even a universal background check, or because the guns are stolen and do not undergo any background check..........so your dumb idea for a universal background check is defeated before it even begins.........


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2015)

And again...when the super duper universal background check fails to work....because it can't because the criminals already get around the background checks for gun dealers....then the gun grabbers will come back and say...gee.....bad  guys are still getting guns at gun shows and from other individuals because 1) they have friends and family buy the guns because they have clean backgrounds and can pass a check...and 2) they simply steal the guns.....

So...the gun grabbers will come back and say......we need to track these guns.....so we now know we need to register these guns to know who has them after the background check.....that is just common sense...right.......?  So they tighten the noose with "Universal Background" Checks, then they can come back for registration because criminals will still be getting guns illegally...

Dude....we know how you guys think, we know what you want....and we know your tactics.....you never give up and you want all guns...not just categories of guns, banned.......

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment will be surrendered to you morons.....


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you support background checks if they would require registration of firearms and their owners?
> ...





And here we have the easily bypassed aspects of this law if you are a criminal...



> • Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.



So...the federal government will simply mandate that the states do this...or the feds will withhold various federal funding from those states that do not.........



> • As under current law, transfers between family, friends, and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check.



And then the next killing will happen where a family member, who passed a background check, lends a gun to a gang member family member...stating to police..."I didn't know he was a felon" or "I didn't know I couldn't lend him that gun that he used in the drive by" and the gun grabbers will come back to seal that new "Loophole."


They give us a few things so we put the noose around our necks...makes it easier to tighten the noose when they come back for more......


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 1, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Over 90% of Americans think you are dumb...I KNOW you are. You are making excuses for criminals and murderers.

Hey pea brain, why have ANY laws. Someone will break them so why bother?


----------



## pismoe (Apr 1, 2015)

so you are just another gun controller ehh BFG !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 1, 2015)

pismoe said:


> so you are just another gun controller ehh BFG !!



So common sense gun laws must be stopped, eh pismoe?

I support the right to bear arms to protect yourself, your family and your property, but unless I advocate NO gun laws, I am a gun grabber?

PLEASE tell me what gun control laws YOU support?


----------



## pismoe (Apr 1, 2015)

hey BFG , first some good news for you and the board and I think its Kansas , gov of Kansas has said that he will sign a law that supports Constitutional carry rather than Shall Issue Carry .   This good news follows with a link ,  ---   Gov. Sam Brownback to sign bill allowing unlicensed conceal-carry CJOnline.com  ---  as far as what do I support , I suppose that I'd like to see gun laws as they were about 200 years ago .


----------



## pismoe (Apr 1, 2015)

and yeah , you are a gun controller in my opinion BFG !!


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 1, 2015)

pismoe said:


> hey BFG , first some good news for you and the board and I think its Kansas , gov of Kansas has said that he will sign a law that supports Constitutional carry rather than Shall Issue Carry .   This good news follows with a link ,  ---   Gov. Sam Brownback to sign bill allowing unlicensed conceal-carry CJOnline.com  ---  as far as what do I support , I suppose that I'd like to see gun laws as they were about 200 years ago .



So NO gun laws is what you support. And criminals have every right to own a gun, right pismoe?


----------



## pismoe (Apr 1, 2015)

criminals should be in jail BFG !!


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 1, 2015)

Felons can't own or carry guns....catch them doing so....lock them up....that is the only effective gun law...all the others just target people who won't break the law.......

moron....


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 1, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Felons can't own or carry guns....catch them doing so....lock them up....that is the only effective gun law...all the others just target people who won't break the law.......
> 
> moron....


 So tell me, HOW do we know who is and isn't a felon? The honor system?


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 1, 2015)

*Gun Owners Should Support Background Checks*
*The priority of Congress should be to keep guns away from criminals. The best way to do this is by expanding criminal background checks.*

By MIKE THOMPSON

March 10, 2015

I’m a hunter and gun owner. I support the Second Amendment. For many Americans, myself included, guns are part of our culture and our upbringing. Congress cannot ignore this fact in its efforts to curb gun violence.

I’m also the father of two first responders and a grandfather who believes that we need smart gun laws that help keep American families safe.

To that end, the priority of Congress should be straightforward: Keep guns away from criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The best way to do this is by expanding criminal background checks.

We don’t need to stop law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, sport shooting and personal protection from obtaining firearms. We need to stop criminals, domestic abusers and those with a history of dangerous mental illness from getting guns. The only way to know if someone falls into one of these categories is to conduct a background check.

This is a rationale that an overwhelming majority of gun owners support. It’s one that even the National Rifle Association used to support before it changed its stance. Ironically, by flip-flopping on expanded background checks, the gun lobby has undermined a legitimate effort to reduce gun violence and, in doing so, has left the door open for more stringent restrictions on Second Amendment rights in the future.

This isn’t the story the gun lobby tells. When expanded background checks are debated, the gun lobby presents moderate, gun-owning Americans and their congressional representatives with a false choice: If you’re for the Second Amendment, you cannot be for background check laws that help keep guns away from criminals.

This line of thinking couldn’t be further off base. In reality, the best way to make sure the Second Amendment is protected from overreaching gun laws is to reduce gun violence. And the best way to reduce gun violence is to expand background checks so that the number of places criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill can get guns is drastically decreased.

Currently, federal law requires criminal background checks only at federally licensed gun dealers. I recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation to close this loophole by expanding background checks to all advertised sales, such as those at gun shows and over the Internet.

Critics immediately said the bill was a threat to the Second Amendment. It isn’t. If it were, my name wouldn’t be on it.

I wrote this bill for two reasons. First, I support the Second Amendment and don’t want to see the gun rights that many law-abiding Americans enjoy undermined by more restrictive and less well-thought-out legislation, which is what will happen if gun violence continues unchecked. Second, I wrote the bill because background checks work. Every day that background checks are used, they stop more than 170 felons, some 50 domestic abusers and nearly 20 fugitives from buying a gun.

However, those same criminals can currently buy identical guns at a gun show or over the Internet with no questions asked. Closing these loopholes would keep guns from criminals and, in the long run, help protect Second Amendment rights by curbing gun violence and thereby lessening the calls for excessively stringent gun laws.


Read more: Gun Owners Should Support Background Checks - Mike Thompson - POLITICO Magazine


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 2, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> *Gun Owners Should Support Background Checks*
> *The priority of Congress should be to keep guns away from criminals. The best way to do this is by expanding criminal background checks.*
> 
> By MIKE THOMPSON
> ...



this guys is an idiot.......when he says..."The gun lobby" you know he is a lefty....the fact that he is a hunter gives it away as well....I have a friend who is a hunter and he doesn't pay attention to the fight for the 2nd Amendment....he thinks "I have my shotgun for hunting, I don't need a pistol...so I am not worried about gun control...they don't want my shotgun" and he is wrong......they want all guns...including his shotgun.

This idiot falls prey to the dumb argument for Universal Background Checks....they want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and they think background checks will do that since...hey.....if criminals have to have their backgrounds checked...they can't get guns.....

That is magical thinking of the worst sort...since the federal background checks we have today don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns today...

Criminals get around background checks today by having friends and family who can legally pass background checks by their guns.....they also get past background checks by buying stolen guns......they also get past background checks, less often, by using corrupt gun dealers.....dealers who know it is illegal to sell guns without background checks...but do it anyway....

Any of the method above will already circumvent new and improved Universal Background Checks.....before they are even implemented...

That anti-gunners don't understand that just shows they can't be trusted with designing gun laws....the laws they want don't work....at all.......

And what this idiot doesn't understand because he is a hunter and doesn't pay attention to the defense of the 2nd Amendment...he doesn't understand the agenda of the gun banners...the hard core gun banners.....they know universal background checks won't work......then why do they push for them?  Because it is the next step to registration of all guns and owners......how is this?  Because universal background checks won't stop criminals from getting guns, down the road they will come back and say Hey....these super duper background checks at gun shows aren't working...so now we need the next level of gun crime prevention.....between those pesky family members who can pass background checks who give their guns to their gang banger relatives....don't you know...and they will pass the next level of super duper background checks...which also won't work...

And then they will miraculously realize...you know......this whole background check system isn't going to work without the "common sense" practice of "registering all guns" because if we don't know who has the guns, we don't know who can't have them....

So this guy is an idiot.......

Thanks for trying though....

Here are 3 articles on why Universal Background Checks won't work and why they must lead to gun registration......

Why universal background checks won t work TheHill

Another article where it is shown registration is desired...

Do Background Checks Prevent Gun Violence KUOW News and Information

Daily kos article on background checks...

Why I oppose Universal Background Checks - A turning point


----------



## pismoe (Apr 2, 2015)

morning BFG :     so now its Kansas added to Vermont , Alaska , Arizona and a few other states that are doing Constitutional Carry of concealed weapons .    That's a good deal for people in those states and hopefully the trend for the USA .  Looks like '2Aguy' answered a few of your questions .  I'd also add that being a hunter means nothing as far as the '2nd Amendment' goes although its nice that you can hunt ducks with your shotgun !!    Last but not least , keep criminals in jail or release them as 'free' men after they pay their debts to society !!


----------



## pismoe (Apr 2, 2015)

more good news BFG , black people are starting to see that its a good deal to be carrying and owning guns .     ---  More African-Americans Support Carrying Legal Guns For Self-Defense NPR    ---  its good news BFG and its pertinent to a general gun thread .


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 3, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun Owners Should Support Background Checks*
> ...



You keep parroting the same retarded false argument. It is rife with LIES, ridiculous false assumptions and the patented right wing retarded "slippery slope" fear infested squealing. 

I have debunked your ignorance and you keep parroting the same crap. But parrots don't actually think....they mimic.

Let me ask you a yes/no question.

Would YOU risk going to prison and buy a gun for someone who can't pass a background check?

1) YES
2) NO


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2015)

You haven't done anything other than show you can't think past the first step of gun control silliness....would I buy a gun for someone who can't own or carry one legally...no....but I  know the law for one, and for another thing I am not part of a criminal culture where getting a gun for a family member or boyfriend in a gang is part of what you do.....since most illegal guns are already  acquired in ways that get around current background checks.....your super duper universal background checks will not stop these methods either....

so it is you who have no idea what you are talking about....

Why universal background checks won t work TheHill

The gun, of course, was sold to someone who doesn’t have a criminal record—a straw purchaser. The straw purchaser buys the gun for someone who can’t. Sometimes a straw purchaser will even learn that a gun has turned up in a crime and will quickly report it as being stolen;


Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.
The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7 percent).

And the Hill is not some right wing source either....I know you anti-gun nuts have pegged your hopes on preventing criminals from getting guns through the law......but the only people you effect are people who can pass background checks........

Criminals don't care...especially gang members who have been breaking the law since their early teenage years and they are the ones doing most of the illegal shooting.....

And here...another look at where criminals get their guns...

Inside the Black Market for Guns - Forbes

The gun, of course, was sold to someone who doesn’t have a criminal record—a straw purchaser. The straw purchaser buys the gun for someone who can’t. Sometimes a straw purchaser will even learn that a gun has turned up in a crime and will quickly report it as being stolen;

They used a laptop wired to a projection screen to show video of a man from Brooklyn named James Brady, a felon who moved to Alabama and came up with a very stupid criminal scheme. He talked women in Alabama who didn’t have criminal records into buying handguns and shotguns for him from Alabama gun stores. He then put the guns in his car’s trunk and drove to Brooklyn, New York, to sell the guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 3, 2015)

You see.....the criminals already get past current back ground checks using techniques that will get past new and improved back ground checks......


More recently, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates convicted of gun-related crimes determined that 79 percent of them bought their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.” These “illegal sources” included thefts of firearms, black market purchases of stolen firearms and straw purchases.
I mentioned these studies and the agents agreed that criminals will find a way to arm themselves if they so desire.

So.....your solution is no solution at all and won't stop any of the 8-9,000 gun murders a year or any new mass shooting...since many mass shooters can simply pass background checks or they steal the guns they are going to use to commit mass murder




*Still, these findings make it clear that requiring all private sales of firearms be put through the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) wouldn’t do anything to stop criminals from getting guns, as criminals are already largely getting their guns through thefts, straw purchases and other illegal means.*
Later, my interviews with former inner-city gang members would confirm this. They told me they have no difficulty getting guns. A few even said they could introduce me to some people. I declined, of course, but I also asked if they found gun-control laws to be a deterrent. To a person they said “no.”

So who is more clueless...you or me....

You anti gunners want to stop criminals from getting guns...a noble idea....but there is no way to do it.....what you can do.....arrest criminals with guns and put them in jail for a very long time....that works every time.....then you don't have to waste money on a background check system that is easily circumvented by criminals......


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 3, 2015)

2aguy said:


> You haven't done anything other than show you can't think past the first step of gun control silliness....would I buy a gun for someone who can't own or carry one legally...no....but I  know the law for one, and for another thing I am not part of a criminal culture where getting a gun for a family member or boyfriend in a gang is part of what you do.....since most illegal guns are already  acquired in ways that get around current background checks.....your super duper universal background checks will not stop these methods either....
> 
> so it is you who have no idea what you are talking about....
> 
> ...



WOW, you are truly a MORON... 

C.D. “_Chuck_” Michel - 
Michel, a Long Beach-based contract attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) – the statewide affiliate of the National Rifle Association


----------



## pismoe (Apr 3, 2015)

didn't read the links 'BFG' but on Chuck Michel , he might be a fine guy , I've heard of him .  Still his state is right at the top of the list when it comes to bad states for Guns and Gunowners .   Besides that , he is an attorney so while he may be a nice guy I don't think I'd take his advice very seriously .  Besides that he is from Long Beach , now that's a third world he11hole !!     And by the way , where did Brian go , he seems to have disappeared 'BFG' ??


----------



## LOki (Apr 20, 2015)

Bfgrn said:


> I have debunked your ignorance and you keep parroting the same crap. But parrots don't actually think....they mimic.


Could you link to this "debunking" you did? I'm interested, but I can't find it.



Bfgrn said:


> Let me ask you a yes/no question.
> 
> Would YOU risk going to prison and buy a gun for someone who can't pass a background check?
> 
> ...


I'll play this game. My answer is no.

Now it's your turn.

Consider yourself in the position of a prohibited person. Having committed yourself to obtaining a gun, and knowing you could not pass a background check, would you risk going to prison by obtaining a gun by some means where a background check would be performed, or otherwise submit to a background check?

1) YES
2) NO


----------

