Gun Control Compromise

[Daryl Hunt]

The Constitution does not limit the type of arm, nor does it limit WHY we can carry an Arm. It just says we can. If I want to take six loaded magazines with me, or six guns, or sixteen knives, etc. I can, because it is my natural right. In fact when I go to my gun range to practice, I often take several firearms, and a few thousand rounds of ammunition. Very common, and most others do the same.

And most States allow you this Privilege. Otherwise, how are you going to get them to the range? Beam me up Scotty?

 

[Conservative65]

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

i took a facebook IQ test.

i'm quite smart.

I have two failed marraiges. Both were gorgeous blonds that looked like they step off a Model's Runway. The first one was dumber than a box of rocks. She played around and we parted sheets. I decided I wanted a smart one. I found a very talented Singer and helped her with here carreer. Her IQ was much higher than mine. But damn, I learned she had some serious problems. She could play me like a bass fiddle. But like most brilliant people, she had some serious draw backs. Her common sense was just about zero. She helped herself to all my professional equipment but the Judge, not being part of the industry, allowed me to have certain components that made all the rest pretty well worthless. She told me that I destroyed her carreer. Actually, the reason her carreer was destroyed was that it no longer had the business person in it and all others were afraid to take that job. I thought she had star quality (which she did on the surface) but working in Texas I learned that you don't have to that good to be a Star. She had natural talent while I had skills through practicing the trade. Last time I heard, she was working as a Waitress in a Truckstop going from man to man to man. It just got worse for her as he got older and her looks started to slip.

Having a High IQ isn't always a good thing. In fact, the higher the IQ the more the common everyday things get in the way. I once said that God gave us all the same tools. Some got more of one tool but they had to sacrifice other tools. And getting a degree doesn't make you any smarter. An Idiot that goes and gets an education ends up becoming an Educated Idiot.

Do you have proof you were married twice? Verifiable proof?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

Wow, the whorehouse debate society at work. If you can't come up with anything to defeat the others logic, go after the other person's character. Run Forest Run.

No one can attack your character. You don't have any nor have you displayed logic except in your own Alzheimer's ravaged mind.

Say Goodnight, Gracie

 

[Conservative65]

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

Wow, the whorehouse debate society at work. If you can't come up with anything to defeat the others logic, go after the other person's character. Run Forest Run.

No one can attack your character. You don't have any nor have you displayed logic except in your own Alzheimer's ravaged mind.

Say Goodnight, Gracie

Are you going to run like a coward, too, bitch?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When I see anyone using the generic noun of "They" then I am automatically suspect. Am I one of "They"? Exactly who is part of "They". I want names. But in reality, it's part of a Fear Campaign that really doesn't have any place in any rational discussion. Well, unless you give me all the names of "They". That should keep you busy while you find all the "They"s.

If you had any level of reading comprehension ability, you'd know who "they" is. If you have to ask, I'm suspect that you have an IQ higher than 85.

Actually, my IQ has slipped as we all grow older. I started out at 140. But if I took that same test today, I doubt I could get any higher than about 120. Maybe tomorrow it may slip down to 85 but who knows. You still haven't defined who "They" are. I want names. Otherwise, you need to stick to facts which is much harder to do and "They" aren't a real factor.

Do you have anything that can be verified about your IQ claims?

If you can't figure out who "they" refers to, you're IQ is obviously lower than the average black which, BTW, is 85. Forrest Gump has a higher IQ than you, son.

Wow, the whorehouse debate society at work. If you can't come up with anything to defeat the others logic, go after the other person's character. Run Forest Run.

And the Walker Colt started the debate on the 2A thing. And it just ballooned from there.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Privilege is one of those words that we learn to detest at a very young age. So we come up with other words to say it that sound much softer. I am just cutting through the PC of things and getting to the meat and potatoes.

I don't think it is a word I learned to despise as a youth. I don't like the word when used in the context of a right.

It's still a right, regardless of location or circumstances. We have the right at all times.

What I was saying is that I can accept the limitations described in Miller if that ends the debate (which it will not).

Applying the Miller rule, I have the right to whatever a soldier would commonly carry into battle.

I would be willing to accept limitations beyond my front door, but not an outright ban, as long as it ends the debate and the left quits trying to push for more. It won't, so why should I be reasonable?

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Privilege is one of those words that we learn to detest at a very young age. So we come up with other words to say it that sound much softer. I am just cutting through the PC of things and getting to the meat and potatoes.

I don't think it is a word I learned to despise as a youth. I don't like the word when used in the context of a right.

It's still a right, regardless of location or circumstances. We have the right at all times.

What I was saying is that I can accept the limitations described in Miller if that ends the debate (which it will not).

Applying the Miller rule, I have the right to whatever a soldier would commonly carry into battle.

I would be willing to accept limitations beyond my front door, but not an outright ban, as long as it ends the debate and the left quits trying to push for more. It won't, so why should I be reasonable?

.

First of all, the Miller V US ruling. Since then, the Firearms for Citizens have been delinked to what the military has. Let's face it, the Military weapons just got too outlandish and the intent was lost right after the Spanish American War. It was probably lost right after the first Gatlin and Artillery made it to the front lines in the Civil war. The Indians weren't that afraid of the troops with the guns but they were scared to death of the Hotchkiss Canon which, arguably, is the first real modern Artillery Piece. So the Miller Ruling is no longer really applicable.

I hold that we keep the miller ruling on that class of weapon and update it. A Sawed Off Shotgun is for maiming, not hunting, makes a lousy self defense weapon since it also nails everything all around the intended target and has zero uses for anything else. It's a nuisance and fear weapon.

There are very few outright bans. If you have the correct licensing and registrations along with the proper storage and ability to transport it when needed, most local governments will allow it. If I live in the middle of nowhere and have the proper permits, I can own a fully functional M-60 Tank. I can even fire it on my own property. But for each round, it's going to cost me for the cost of the round but a 200 buck surcharge as well to just have that ammo. Poor people or even Upper Middle Class People should may not apply.

The original intent of that 200 bucks was to tax various weapons out of existance. Since then, it's still 200 bucks and it's used to separate the fun seekers from the serious people. Among other things, they didn't make the M-2 Mah Deuce illegal or banned they just made it where fewer people would have them and they weren't being used in criminal activities. Gun Collectors DON'T want their toys to be misused. It's just too damned hard to procure them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Since then, the Firearms for Citizens have been delinked to what the military has.

Why? Because the gun haters wanted it that way? It makes no sense. Who got to decide on this de-linking?

In 1939, when Miller was decided, and decades after that, citizens had the right to state-of-the-art machine guns.

The Miller Court said:

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

By implication, a weapon that is commonly carried by regular soldiers would bear a reasonable relationship to militia service.

But, in 1986, the government infringed on that right with the Hughes Amendment.

What changed? The weapons of a soldier have been substantially the same since WWI. The "Tommy" gun and B.A.R. were regularly carried by soldiers, and today's standard rifles are substantially similar in operation and firepower.

There are very few outright bans.

Hughes Amendment is an unconstitutional outright ban, and a pretty fucking big one.

The original intent of that 200 bucks was to tax various weapons out of existance. Since then, it's still 200 bucks and it's used to separate the fun seekers from the serious people.

The reason they did it by taxation is because they knew it would be undoubtedly unconstitutional to do it any other way. The intent alone is unconstitutional.

And, now we have the Hughes Amendment, that ignores the barely constitutional nature of the NFA, and just goes straight to outright infringement.

Am I wrong?

.

 

[Pilot1]

Our corrupt courts allow our Government to be tyrannical a LOT. All the Fed, and State gun laws are unreasonable infringements yet the court upholds them, or just doesn't hear the cases.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Since then, the Firearms for Citizens have been delinked to what the military has.

Why? Because the gun haters wanted it that way? It makes no sense. Who got to decide on this de-linking?

In 1939, when Miller was decided, and decades after that, citizens had the right to state-of-the-art machine guns.

The Miller Court said:

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

By implication, a weapon that is commonly carried by regular soldiers would bear a reasonable relationship to militia service.

But, in 1986, the government infringed on that right with the Hughes Amendment.

What changed? The weapons of a soldier have been substantially the same since WWI. The "Tommy" gun and B.A.R. were regularly carried by soldiers, and today's standard rifles are substantially similar in operation and firepower.

There are very few outright bans.

Hughes Amendment is an unconstitutional outright ban, and a pretty fucking big one.

The original intent of that 200 bucks was to tax various weapons out of existance. Since then, it's still 200 bucks and it's used to separate the fun seekers from the serious people.

The reason they did it by taxation is because they knew it would be undoubtedly unconstitutional to do it any other way. The intent alone is unconstitutional.

And, now we have the Hughes Amendment, that ignores the barely constitutional nature of the NFA, and just goes straight to outright infringement.

Am I wrong?

.

You aren't if you are looking at the outdated Militia Parts that no longer really apply. but if you are looking for the real reason for the 1934 Firearms act, that would fall under public safety.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our corrupt courts allow our Government to be tyrannical a LOT. All the Fed, and State gun laws are unreasonable infringements yet the court upholds them, or just doesn't hear the cases.

Where is my Nuclear Weapons. I want my Nuclear Weapons. Screw public safety, this is about unalienable rights. GIVE ME MY NUCLEAR WEAPONS, GIVE ME MY....... And I then throw myself on the ground in a fit or rage and miss.

 

[Kondor3]

What is needed...

• National standards, overriding anything at the State level
• Mandatory licensing of owners
• Mandatory registration of individual firearms
• Mandatory licensing of all commercial dealers
• Mandatory reporting and tracking of all transfers and dispositions
• Mandatory periodic universal background checks
• Limit on the number of firearms that an individual can own
• Different categories of licensing for different categories of firearms
• General and license-specific requirements for each license category
• Mandatory periodic training for each category of firearms owned
• Centralized national database for licensing and registration, etc.
• GPS locators embedded into or installed onto each firearm
• Enforcement in the law-courts with real teeth (fines, prison) for chronic violators

Yes...you are a fascist...we get it...

Incorrect. Merely a fellow citizen who believes in stringent gun control.

...Yes....according to you we need Poll Taxes for voting, Literacy tests for voting, we need a religious test on voting, and a loyalty oath for voting......

Nope. Never said any such thing. Never even thought any such thing. Lousy attempt at deflection, by the way.

...And how would anything you just listed do anything to stop criminals or mass shooters.....?

Dunno... but it's time to find out... time to treat Killing Devices as seriously as we do Commercial Drivers Licenses.

 

[iceberg]

Our corrupt courts allow our Government to be tyrannical a LOT. All the Fed, and State gun laws are unreasonable infringements yet the court upholds them, or just doesn't hear the cases.

Where is my Nuclear Weapons. I want my Nuclear Weapons. Screw public safety, this is about unalienable rights. GIVE ME MY NUCLEAR WEAPONS, GIVE ME MY....... And I then throw myself on the ground in a fit or rage and miss.

so - an average day in the forums???

 

[Pilot1]

Incorrect. Merely a fellow citizen who believes in stringent gun control.

I believe in controlling the actions of criminals, by stringent sentencing. It controls their ACTIONS, not the tools. Citizens believe in the Constitution as written, so maybe refer to yourself as a Subject instead.

 

[Kondor3]

Incorrect. Merely a fellow citizen who believes in stringent gun control.

I believe in controlling the actions of criminals, by stringent sentencing. It controls their ACTIONS, not the tools. Citizens believe in the Constitution as written, so maybe refer to yourself as a Subject instead.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Incorrect. Merely a fellow citizen who believes in stringent gun control.

I believe in controlling the actions of criminals, by stringent sentencing. It controls their ACTIONS, not the tools. Citizens believe in the Constitution as written, so maybe refer to yourself as a Subject instead.

I know a number of habitual criminals. They believe that the next time they will get away with it. You lock them up for 10 to 20 years and they use that time to come up with a new scheme. Then they get out and here we go again. All the sentencing does is gets them off the streets. Not a bad thing but you need to call it for what it really is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Has it occured to you that the drug dealers have paid the cops off, and that's why they don't do anything?

Oh, look.

You should look, because if you did, you'd realize this has nothing to do with your claim. No drug dealer was paying off the cops. A known drug dealer was being framed by the cops. Big difference. Much like Jim Comey on behalf of Hillary and the Democrats, they got search warrants using false information. Then like Hillary and the Democrats, they used that information for personal gain.

Again, not seeing how harrassing innocent people on minor traffic violations and shooting them is helping all that much... it makes the community trust the police less. Especially when the cops are corrupt and on the payroll of the drug dealers.

Nobody is on the payroll of drug dealers. Quit watching those Mafia movies already. You're taking them too literally.

Yes, police pulled over traffic violaters and many times found something much larger. What's wrong with that? They busted the felon with a gun in his car before he got to rob one of our citizens or stores. They busted the pusher when he was driving suspiciously before he sold those drugs to our kids. They busted the driver who's license was suspended for the fifth time before he hit one of our citizens and quickly drive away.

That's what we want our police to do--be proactive in crime. If you can stop crime before it happens, only to a liberal would that be a terrible thing. But we normal people with common sense think it's a great thing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You aren't if you are looking at the outdated Militia Parts that no longer really apply. but if you are looking for the real reason for the 1934 Firearms act, that would fall under public safety.

What changed to make "public safety" of what someone might do trump inalienable rights?

That is TERRIBLE reasoning.

If we did things on the basis of public safety because of what someone might do, why not just lock everyone up for life and stop all crime?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When they shot the 12 year old playing with the toy... they weren't doing it "right'.

Yeah, he was standing there playing with his yo-yo licking his giant lolly pop and the cops just pulled up and shot him. If you people can't even discuss reality, why do you bother having the discussion? Or is it the fact you never see reality. You just make something up instead.

Guy, you won't look for jobs you are qualified for that pay better because of your lack of ambition. It's why you don't have health insurance while your boss takes fancy Italian Holidays. Battered housewife Republican.

Or is it why you refuse to get the psychological help you so badly need?

You left out a few parts, like he was running away, had his hands up, and wasn't an immediate threat. But never mind, you guys got your narrative about the scary black man, and you are sticking too it.

MEANWHILE, cities are getting a bit tired of paying out huge settlements for corrupt bullies with badges.

$6.5MM to Walter Scott's family
$6MM to LaQuan McDonald's family
$5.9MM to Eric Garner's family
$5MM to Tamir Rice's family
$1.9MM to Mike Brown's family
$1.5MM to Sandra Bland's family.

You see, you can whine about the how the police are being abused all day, but the fact is, the rest of us are realizing that we can't afford these guys.

Yes, the big clown was running away when the officer shot him. And he used those funny bullets where you shoot next to the guy running away, and the bullet turns around and enters his body from the front like the autopsy showed. Maybe you should stay away from those 70's cartoons.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A kid playing with a toy isn't a crime. A lady talking back to a racist cop who pulled her over for a bullshit traffic violation isn't a crime. These are the kinds of incidents I am on about.

If you pull a gun on a cop and he shoots you, I really don't have any problem with that.

Sure you do. That's exactly what the Tamir Rice case was about. We even have video.