CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[hauke]

the last time i got caught with hashish by the police, they gave me back my grass, thats germany, in the usa id go to jail

 

[hauke]

in germany no grass dealer got a gun, in america police got to fear for their life for a gramm of grass

 

[Fair&Balanced]

in germany 2016 we don t allow police to have special rights to kill

Oh, I imagine that you do, just as the police here in the US do have special powers to kill.

For instance, in every jurisdiction a police officer can kill a person in order to protect themselves or another person (and indeed EVERY US citizen has that right) but in most states then can also shoot and kill a person who is known to have committed a felony and is fleeing and is a potential threat should he get away and who the officer feels he has no other way to stop from getting away.

Now, that is a lot of nuance to understand when an officer can and can not shoot a person, so it comes as no surprise that the average American, who is a fucking moron of epic proportions, loses his damn mind every time a police officer is shot and screams about murder.

It seems the average German may not be much smarter.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

QUOTE]
There's always time for porn! It wasn't long after the camera was invented that nude pictures of women started showing up.

Nude pictures of women have been around since long before photography was invented. As long as mankind has been producing artwork, the nude female form has always been a popular subject.

 

[2aguy]

theres no country on earth, so to say no country at all, with more gun viollance then the usa, the usa is NR 1 in gun death, USA NR 1 !!!!! usa is nr 1 in gun violance, the usa is the most dispicaple nation on earth considering gun death

Please....if you average our deaths by gun violence by criminals and death by mass murder by the German's, the German mass murder rate beats us..........

 

[2aguy]

Well, that is where you are wrong. Requiring extensive background checks DEMONSTRABLY prevented criminals from obtaining automatic weapons in this country. There is verifiable proof of this fact.

Really?
How many NFA transfers have been denied because the applicant was a criminal and unable to legally buy a gun?

Plus, you aren't even considering the system I propose is LESS intrusive than the one we CURRENTLY have. ONE background check every 10 years,

I oppose background checks in toto.
But this is better than the current system.
My CCW permit allows me to skip a background check for as long as the permit is valid.

Right, and I'm fine with the CCW permit signifying the right to buy firearms as long as the FBI background check is utilized.

And why are you opposed to background checks ? Do you oppose voter id laws?

Voter I.D. laws merely confirm who you say you are....if you want that for guns that is fine...we show a drivers license we get the gun......we could put, FELON, on the drivers license of felons, and then we wouldn't need background checks.

 

[Howey]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

Do you have a linked source to say "Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets"? Something contrary to this?:

Growing number of police chiefs, sheriffs join call to arms | Fox News
It's Florida Sheriff Grady Judd's duty to protect the citizens of Polk County -- but he figures it's their job, too.

One of a growing number of rural and big-city law enforcement officials who openly encourages responsible gun ownership, Judd believes guns allow citizens to defend themselves when police cannot.

“If you are foolish enough to break into someone’s home, you can expect to be shot in Polk County,” Judd said in a statement after a homeowner shot a would-be home invader earlier this month. “It’s more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone."

Such full-throated embrace of the Second Amendment as a crime-fighting tool isn't confined to red states like Florida.

“I want as many law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in this county as we can get." --- Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke​

One California police chief is backing teachers in his district packing heat. Detroit Police Chief James Craig has been a leader in urging his community to arm itself. A Maryland sheriff is working with the state’s general assembly to try to make it easier for citizens to obtain handgun permits.

In the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s most recent ranking of states with the strongest gun laws, California (1), Maryland (4) and Michigan (15) ranked near the top of the pack.

Some gun rights advocates say terror attacks at home and abroad have contributed to a change in attitudes about gun ownership among community members and authorities, even in locales historically hostile towards the Second Amendment.

“That has helped play into it, and there’s no doubt the active shooter scenario has, too,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “You’re seeing people say, ‘How do you respond?’”

The answer varies based on where you live, and how your law enforcement leaders are selected.

Police chiefs are typically appointed by mayors, and their politics tend to line up with whoever chose them. Sheriffs, in contrast, are voted into office and in some cases espouse values of a constituency that is growing ever-more pro-gun.

“Historically, sheriffs have been very pro-gun rights,” Gottlieb told FoxNews.com. “But they’ve stepped out of the box and they’re now publicly making it known that firearms are good for self-defense.”

In Oklahoma, Garvin County Sheriff Larry Rhodes and Creek County Sheriff John Davis have each recently reduced costs associated with getting a gun license. Davis is also keeping administrative offices open longer on weekends to allow more people to apply.

“As a result of the ever-increasing violence being committed upon the American citizen and the current state of our country, I encourage each citizen of Creek County who is legally able to fully utilize their Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ as legally prescribed by the Oklahoma Defense Act,” Davis said in a statement.

Rhodes said his plan made simple fiscal sense.

I've already posted it.

 

[Howey]

Bull. The gun is the only tool used by man designed with one purpose and one only - to kill.

A standard LW lie.

These guns aren't designed to kill:

That's quite the fine needle you threaded there...

Look. I don't hate guns. I'm an expert marksman. However, it's time for some common sense. This is a good read...

Anyone who has tried to have a debate with an anti-gunner has surely encounter the quip “Guns are only meant for killing”. Many of you I’m sure try to say they aren’t. “They’re for shooting a projectile,” or “They’re for hunting/busting clays”, etc. Insert whatever excuse you’d like. There is a truth we cannot avoid — guns are for killing. When an anti-gunner tries to end the argument with that phrase I reply, “I buy all my guns for their potential lethality or ability to make me better at potentially killing.” It’s exactly why criminals use them and law enforcement officers carry them. Death is completely effective at stopping an assailant from inflicting the same on you. Death has a stopping guarantee that injury can’t boast of . . .


If a criminal comes into my house in the dead of night, I refuse to be unarmed or wield a bat. If I’m prepping for disaster, I refuse to let my stuff be taken without lead flying. If someone tries to take me away because I’m of the wrong color skin or worship the wrong deity, I will not be unarmed. If the government becomes unwieldy and tramples my rights, I refuse to only have a poster and my voice in protest. It’s a fundamental question that I asked myself when I came of age to purchase my first pistol and get my concealed carry license — what am I willing to kill for, if at all?

Gun owners need to examine this issue, whether it’s in regards to self-defense or a more general notion. If your answer is “not at all,” then by all means don’t carry. If you’re going to own guns at all, lock them up when not in use and shoot targets for the enjoyment of mastering a skill.

Let’s not continue, though, pretending that guns aren’t lethal weapons because that’s the emotional tool that our opponents use. We have no end of reviews on ammo and how much different brands penetrate, we talk about accuracy, we fight to maintain possession of our magazines regardless of capacity…all of which are aspects of how lethal a particular weapon is in our hands. I won’t shy away from the fact that I buy my guns to kill, but hope I never have to.

I fully believe this s one of the core issues in the right to bear arms. Many will believe that we have no right to kill another (or even an animal). I respect those views despite my extreme disagreement. However I don’t believe yet that our country has given up on our individual liberties, and we still hold them sacrosanct.

Though it may never happen, it has never been a question whether someone can come and attempt to take my “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” One only has to turn on the evening news to see case after case of the reasons to carry and own firearms. History is on our side and we must continue to fight against those who would rob us of the best tool to ensure that we can defend what we hold most dear on equal footing of those would doing the taking.

 

[Howey]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

The NRA is circumventing the current laws regarding straw purchases by fighting legislation to prevent them.

 

[Howey]

Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever.
.

This is another statement of ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Transfer between private parties, especially those across state lines, are regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

In the real world, sure. But not in today's NRA world...

 

[Howey]

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

And that is dishonest.........no one here on the 2nd Amendment side of the equation has ever advocated criminals having guns or the dangerously mentally ill....that is you and the anti gunners...lying about our position because facts do not support your position....

Yet you and the NRA oppose legislation to prevent criminals or the dangerously mental ill from buying guns.

 

[Howey]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

Do you know why they fought against background checks on private sales.....because the only way to enforce that is the next step that anti gunners would demand.....registraton of all guns.....that is why the NRA and I and others oppose background checks for private sales....and considering criminals are not using private sales to get their guns...the only reason anti gunners want them is to get to registration of guns.

We register cars. Why not guns?

"Only criminals wouldn't register cars". Great, another charge to use to bring them to justice. You're against this. Why?

Nevermind, I've long since stopped reading your idiotic posts.

Guns are a Right....registration has historically been used to round up guns by the government....in Germany, which led to the death camps....and Britain and Australia.......so no...registering guns is not the same as cars.....

Also....any fee attacked to a Right is a violation of the exercise of that Right...democrats used Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting......so again....you can't force gun registration.....

Sorry to disappoint you, but no, guns are not a right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/second-amendment-concealed-carry.html?_r=0

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit.

The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.


“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.

 

[2aguy]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

The NRA is circumventing the current laws regarding straw purchases by fighting legislation to prevent them.

Wrong.....would you care to explain how that actually works....? Straw purchases are already against the law......

 

[2aguy]

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

And that is dishonest.........no one here on the 2nd Amendment side of the equation has ever advocated criminals having guns or the dangerously mentally ill....that is you and the anti gunners...lying about our position because facts do not support your position....

Yet you and the NRA oppose legislation to prevent criminals or the dangerously mental ill from buying guns.

Point out the laws we oppose, and how they allegedly work to keep those two groups from getting guns.....please explain...in detail...because I can show you, in detail, how you are wrong...

 

[2aguy]

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

Do you know why they fought against background checks on private sales.....because the only way to enforce that is the next step that anti gunners would demand.....registraton of all guns.....that is why the NRA and I and others oppose background checks for private sales....and considering criminals are not using private sales to get their guns...the only reason anti gunners want them is to get to registration of guns.

We register cars. Why not guns?

"Only criminals wouldn't register cars". Great, another charge to use to bring them to justice. You're against this. Why?

Nevermind, I've long since stopped reading your idiotic posts.

Guns are a Right....registration has historically been used to round up guns by the government....in Germany, which led to the death camps....and Britain and Australia.......so no...registering guns is not the same as cars.....

Also....any fee attacked to a Right is a violation of the exercise of that Right...democrats used Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting......so again....you can't force gun registration.....

Sorry to disappoint you, but no, guns are not a right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/second-amendment-concealed-carry.html?_r=0

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit.

The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.


“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.

and this is unConstitutional...the 9th circuit is the most overturned court in the country....

 

[320 Years of History]

LMAO, you proved nothing I said wrong.

You stated:
They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party
Fact:
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
Thus, you're wrong.
Now... did you argue from dishonesty or ignorance?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.

Moving the goalposts, eh?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.
This does not change the fact that it is NOT "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
You;re still wrong, and you know it.

As I said -- you can only argue from emotion ignorance and./or dishonesty, as you prove with each and every post.

You (or someone) said earlier we should enforce the laws we have. This would be a measure of enforcement for an existing law. Yet you oppose it.

Just admit you have a tiny dick, and guns make you feel chubbier in your downlow.

Help me out here....

If I'm a gun seller at a gun show and I am not required to perform a background check, so I don't, and I don't know the person before me is a felon, what's stopping me from selling them a gun? Assuming I do sell them a gun, doesn't that mean I've just sold a felon a gun?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The NRA is circumventing the current laws regarding straw purchases by fighting legislation to prevent them.

The Second Amendment is still current law, until such time as a new amendment is ratified to supersede it.

Anyone who argues for blatant violation of the Constitution, which is this nations' highest law, is in no position to argue from a position of claiming to favor the rule of law. If you truly believe that government should have the power to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms, then start working on getting an amendment ratified that overturns the Second, and gives government that power. Anything else, by way of violating this right, is lawlessness.

 

[2aguy]

LMAO, you proved nothing I said wrong.

You stated:
They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party
Fact:
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
Thus, you're wrong.
Now... did you argue from dishonesty or ignorance?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.

Moving the goalposts, eh?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.
This does not change the fact that it is NOT "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
You;re still wrong, and you know it.

As I said -- you can only argue from emotion ignorance and./or dishonesty, as you prove with each and every post.

You (or someone) said earlier we should enforce the laws we have. This would be a measure of enforcement for an existing law. Yet you oppose it.

Just admit you have a tiny dick, and guns make you feel chubbier in your downlow.

Help me out here....

If I'm a gun seller at a gun show and I am not required to perform a background check, so I don't, and I don't know the person before me is a felon, what's stopping me from selling them a gun? Assuming I do sell them a gun, doesn't that mean I've just sold a felon a gun?

If you are a licensed gun seller you have to run a background check....it is a federal law. If you have a gun that you own personally, you can sell it to whoever you like, wether you are at a gun show or not.

You can sell private property...the guy buying it...knows if they are a felon or not......

Yes.....if you sell a gun to a stranger as an individual and they are a felon, they would have bought the gun illegally, when they are caught with the gun they can be arrested and sent to prison...that is if the prosecutor doesn't throw out the gun charge and if the Judge just doesn't give them a low sentence...which are the real problems in the gun violence issue.

On top of that.....criminals don't like to buy guns from individuals they don't know...specifically because they are afraid of police stings...so if they want that gun, they will simply use their baby momma or grandmother to buy the gun....since they have a clean record.....this is how they get past current, federal background checks at gun stores....

So forcing private sellers...selling their .22 rifle to do a background check is pointless from the get go....

The only reason it is an issue...the anti gunners want gun registration...that is at the top of their list, even higher than banning assault weapons........forcing private sellers to do background checks gives them the need for gun registration........that is why it is opposed by gun owners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The NRA is circumventing the current laws regarding straw purchases by fighting legislation to prevent them.

Straw purchases already violate federal law; no law can prevent straw purchases.
Your claim has no merit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever.
.

This is another statement of ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Transfer between private parties, especially those across state lines, are regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

In the real world, sure.

Yes. In the real world, transfer between private parties, especially those across state lines, are regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Not sure how you agreeing to this in any way makes a point that counters what I said.