Biden Blames Guns

[Big Bend Texas]

Big Bend Texas

Except this one sentence.

View attachment 653412

And again, the right is specifically assigned to "The People", not the militia.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Fun fact: the last four mass shootings were by nutcases that passed the Federal background check.

That shows us that background checks are absolutely worthless, doesn't it?

How come the stupid Liberals are telling us that we should do more? That is kinda stupid, isn't it?

Background checks are only as good as the information entered into the system.

If we want to actually reduce the number of mass shootings all we need to do is to act within existing law to have those deemed too dangerous and/or unstable to possess or purchase firearms declared mentally defective.

That requires a 72hr stay for evaluation in a Nut ward or mental hospital and a court hearing for the judge to then declare them ineligible.

The court clerk of Sheriff's Dep't is then required to notify the FBI of the findings of the court so that NICS will kick back any application.

Just as importantly if not more so, there needs to be a change in law allowing citizens to access the NICS system to clear private transfers without having to go through an FFL.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The fact is we don't know when he decided to shoot up the school and there's no indication he was planning it that far ahead.

But you do know that he would’ve bought an illegal shotgun and done it on that same day anyway instead of waiting 90 days to allow a review of his personal history and now days social media content. How is it that you know that?

If I decided to become a good guy with a gun I would be glad to disclose emails tax returns message boards whatever they want for me to own one of those cool guns to make me look like the special ops guys eho killed Bin Laden when Biden was VP

 

[Flash]

Background checks are only as good as the information entered into the system.

If we want to actually reduce the number of mass shootings all we need to do is to act within existing law to have those deemed too dangerous and/or unstable to possess or purchase firearms declared mentally defective.

That requires a 72hr stay for evaluation in a Nut ward or mental hospital and a court hearing for the judge to then declare them ineligible.

The court clerk of Sheriff's Dep't is then required to notify the FBI of the findings of the court so that NICS will kick back any application.

Just as importantly if not more so, there needs to be a change in law allowing citizens to access the NICS system to clear private transfers without having to go through an FFL.

Background checks are terrible for four reasons:

1. They don't work.

2. They are an assumption of guilty until proven innocent.

3. They are the government giving permission for a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

4. See Number 1.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

They are the government giving permission for a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

There's a great many felons and spouse abusers that are legally ineligible and they need to be caught before buying the gun rather than after when they already can do great harm before they can be interdicted.

I can't vote without showing ID and my name checked against the eligible voters list so I see no actual infringement.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And again, the right is specifically assigned to "The People", not the militia.

You say an “individual” even a loner not “people” , an individual with no “regulated” even sejf regulated process by the people, has a right to buy any firearm they desire for any random purpose with no intrusive inquiries by “people” as why he wants to buy it.

Here is your interpretation of something written 240 years ago

It has nothing to do with a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but with specific exceptions decided by the Federal Government shall be infringed.

 

[Flash]

There's a great many felons and spouse abusers that are legally ineligible and they need to be caught before buying the gun rather than after when they already can do great harm before they can be interdicted.

I can't vote without showing ID and my name checked against the eligible voters list so I see no actual infringement.

My three reasons are all valid.

Background checks are an absolute waste of time. It is nothing more than a placebo for Liberals. As we have seen in several high profile shootings lately they just don't work. It would take a tremendous amount of government intrusions into our lives to enter everything that Liberals would consider a threat into some massive government data base.

However, the best reason to reject background checks is the third one I mentioned in my list. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of a right. Background checks is a method of the filthy government giving us permission to enjoy a right. If we have to get government permission to enjoy the rights then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

Besides, nobody in their right mind would want to let a Liberal decide if they could have Liberty or not because the Liberals can't be trusted. Know what I mean?

The great amount of gun crime in this country is among the criminal and street thugs in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes and is done with firearms that are obtained illegally. Background checks are no factor in the crimes and any additional requirement won't change anything.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

My three reasons are all valid.

Background checks are an absolute waste of time. It is nothing more than a placebo for Liberals. As we have seen in several high profile shootings lately they just don't work. It would take a tremendous amount of government intrusions into our lives to enter everything that Liberals would consider a threat into some massive government data base.

However, the best reason to reject background checks is the third one I mentioned in my list. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of a right. Background checks is a method of the filthy government giving us permission to enjoy a right. If we have to get government permission to enjoy the rights then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

Besides, nobody in their right mind would want to let a Liberal decide if they could have Liberty or not because the Liberals can't be trusted. Know what I mean?

The great amount of gun crime in this country is among the criminal and street thugs in the Democrat controlled big city shitholes and is done with firearms that are obtained illegally. Background checks are no factor in the crimes and any additional requirement won't change anything.

You remain incorrect. All rights up to and including the Right to Life can be lost through due process.

If you have lost your rights due to a conviction you cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm.

IF an ineligible person fails a background check and it can be shown the person either knew or had reason to know they were ineligible and why they can be prosecuted for the crime of lying on the FFL and should be.

Time and again we see where someone tried to purchase a gun through an FFL dealer and failed the background check to only then buy one on the black market or through a straw purchaser thence committing a crime with that gun.

If they were off the streets awaiting trial or incarcerated they would be stopped then from committing said crimes.

 

[Captain Caveman]

AR15s are not assault rifles.
And thus, your repeated claims to that effect are false.
Why do you continue to make claims you know are false?

Your arguments were dismissed 2 decades ago.

An AR-15 is an assault rifle

Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If we want to actually reduce the number of mass shootings all we need to do is to act within existing law to have those deemed too dangerous and/or unstable to possess or purchase firearms declared mentally defective.

Can we all as democracy loving law abiding American citizens deem Flash dangerous to our democracy for his advocating using force and firearms to undo the results of a Presidential election that is certified by all fifty states in accordance with the Constitutional requirement to be certified by mid-December?

I support the right to protest, I do not support the "right" to attempt to undo the results of an election by force even if you believe the other side stole the election.

Even when the election was blatantly stolen like it was in 2020?

Flash assumed to be a law winding gun owner says: Stolen elections should be overturned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There's a great many felons and spouse abusers that are legally ineligible and they need to be caught before buying the gun rather than after when they already can do great harm before they can be interdicted.

I can't vote without showing ID and my name checked against the eligible voters list so I see no actual infringement.

Checking that somebody is who they actually say they are, and "whoever" deciding whether you should be allowed to buy a gun or not are two different things.

I read the Biden agenda when he was running. In his gun plans he (and his Congress) wanted a $800.00 fee for a federal license to buy a gun to fund a background check from a licensed shrink. They wanted to interview your wife, kids, parents, neighbors, coworkers and even your ex if you had one. If anybody had a negative opinion of you buying a gun, guess what, you don't get to buy one

Even if all that checks out, the anti-gun shrink would still be able to deny your rights based on his or her opinion about you.

No, it didn't pass (yet) but this is their ultimate goal. You know leftists as well as I do. They say they want X, and once they get X, they move to getting Y and so on. Let them start going down that road and Biden's plan will be part of a gun purchase. In other words, just about nobody will be able to legally buy a gun.

Giving them any additional power is only lighting a fuse we may regret down the road. For instance you may have a personal situation where anti-depressant medication could help. But you know once that prescription is on record, the government is coming to take all your guns away. That would give you the choice of medication that will make you feel better and losing your guns, or to suffer the condition you suffer from to keep them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why does a Supreme Court dismiss one half of the SA as irrelevant 220 years after it was written?

Your argument was dismissed over 2 decades ago.
Thus, your complaints are meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Scalia: 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited​

if it is not unlimited, that precisely means it can be limited in one or many ways.

Which, like with all right, in no way means that it can be limited in any and every way.
That is, just because the right can be limited in no way means it can be limited in the way YOU want.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To ignore the militia reference they said the framers were hacking up a Hairball.

Your argument was dismissed over 2 decades ago.
Thus, your complaints are meaningless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fun fact: the last four mass shootings were by nutcases that passed the Federal background check.

That shows us that background checks are absolutely worthless, doesn't it?

How come the stupid Liberals are telling us that we should do more? That is kinda stupid, isn't it?

For their political agenda, no it isn't.

Liberals have turned our country into a freak show by baby steps. Baby steps is how they get what the ultimately want. I remember when I was a kid. All they wanted was for gays to be let out of the closet. If they could have that, they'd be happy. Fast forward to today, the Supreme Court ruled that all states must allow gay marriage. They get priority with adoption rights that normal couples who have been waiting for years for a child don't get.

I remember when they wanted to outlaw smoking in movie theaters. Smoke wherever you want, just not in a theater, and they'll be happy. Fast forward to today, and there are places you can't even smoke outside in a park or on a beach. In many states like mine you can't smoke at work, in a bar, or even a bowling alley.

Now they say they want expanded background checks and a ban on so-called assault weapons. Give them that, and they'll be happy?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What about ten GOP half woke Senators

Nothing here changes the fact your argument was dismissed over 2 decades ago.
Thus, your complaints are meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ray From Cleveland is in favor of unsafe storage of firearms. No wonder half a million guns are stolen every year.

Ah.
You are ignorant of the fact a legal requirement to secure your firearms violates the constitution.
No surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Although a period instead of a comma between “free state. the right of the

Your argument was dismissed 2 decades ago.
Thus, your opinion is meaningless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Consequent strict weapon laws - and a very high barrier for the private use of war weapons.



Too many people - much too long - in the wrong private institutions.



Why should they have fear?



I heard from "the Germanitor" - he's one of your policemen - that his people (="you") have a trend not to give a fair second chance. So what you say here has perhaps partially something to do with reality - but represents in lots of other cases perhaps only a prejudice. I remember in this context someone who got a job after he had been in prison. The police arrested him without any reason to do so for three days and so the result had been he lost this job. Later he had a new job - and again came a warrant of arrest - also without any sense - but this time he fled and asked for help before to be again in a totally helpless situation in jail and to lose again this job. ...



Another way to see such a problem is for example the sentence "A policemen is the first social worker in front of the real problems of a societey." Could be a good idea to listen what real policemen say and to think about what kind of training they really need.




Why should someone attack you or a member of your family? How high is this risk? How high is the risk to get probems because of the own weapon-fetishism? What makes this all with your complete country? ...



I remember in this context that I stepped once - I was very young - between some policemen and a bank robber with my back to the policemen and my face to the robber. Life is life-threatening - but in this case no one had to die.



In what? ... Ed Parkers Kenpo ... Hmmm ... pragmatism in the centre, I guess. I'm not only a friend of pragmatism.



So it makes sense to make strict weapon laws.



Maybe. Maybe not. The bible says: "Who takes the gun will die by the gun."



Why should anyone kill me - except he is a Nazi. Since decades I live with the imagination one day I will leave my home and a Nazi is stabbing me in the back. That's not any reason for me to buy a weapon although I am on a death list of the Nazis.

As I told you before, I'm not responding to your replies sentence by sentence. If you don't know how to respond without breaking the post up into a dozen sections, go back to your former school teachers and tell them they failed you. I don't have the time for that bullshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

FACTS though: he waited 8 months to turn 18 to easily and legally buy his weapon
of choice an assault rifle.

You have no factual basis for your assumption that he would not have bought a shotgun, has ne been unable to get an AR.
As such, your claim that moving the purchase age for ARs to 21 would have stopped this shooting is unsupportable nonsense.
But, you know all this.