Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[Brain357]

You seem confused. You admitted that every gun sale doesn't require a background check. That's all I wanted to know. thanks.

You are confused background checks are done with family member friends even a stupid fuck like you should know the background of your friends and family

Well enough to take criminal responsibility for any damage done using the hardware you sold them?



We may be on to something, ass-u-me-ing you have the stones to back-up your personal gun sales/trades with your own stones.

Yes the one doing the background check is clearly responsible. This is a good idea.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You are confused background checks are done with family member friends even a stupid fuck like you should know the background of your friends and family

Well enough to take criminal responsibility for any damage done using the hardware you sold them?



We may be on to something, ass-u-me-ing you have the stones to back-up your personal gun sales/trades with your own stones.

Do you know your families background if you don't change families.

That's not the question, Bud....

The question at hand is do YOU know YOUR family and friends well enough to take criminal responsibility for any damage they do with a gun they got from you.

If not, may I suggest a government background check for gun ownership, absolving you of that responsibility.

Would you give a car to a nephew with no state issued drivers license? Would you be criminally liable if you did and he killed someone with it?

 

[PaulS1950]

The only responsibility that a seller of a gun has is that it is not sold to someone who is inelligable to have it. If I sold a gun to a person who was never committed for psychiatric treatment and had never committed a felony the my responsibility ends. The same way it would if that person had passed the background check. If he goes out and kill a dozen folks at the wrestling ring that night, I have no culpability in the crime. It would be the same for anyone who had gone through the check and committed the same crime. The background check doesn't prevent crime. It doesn't even stop criminals from getting guns because there are failures in the system. It does sometimes stop people who are legally able to own guns from making a purchase because of a false report. - it has happened to people I know and they are current gun owners. The system is not perfect and at times it breaks down.
I went beyond the background check and had a deep check done to get a concealed pistol license so I don't have to go through the stupid background check to buy the gun I want. I just walk in, put the money down and walk out with the gun. (just like a police officer can)

 

[AVG-JOE]

If we all have the 'right' to own a gun, then it follows that we should not be denied this right because of financial limitations.

If a person cannot reasonably afford an assault weapon and ammunition, then the government should be obliged to give it to him.

If it is a right then everyone' right should be equal.

I gots my Obama-Care... where do I sign up for my Boehner-Gun?

 

[AVG-JOE]

i never run away. lol at you calling spreading liberal propoganda debating. in that case joseph goebels was a great debator

Making Nazi references = the sign of a truly great debater.

deflection, you lose again. god you really suck at this. hey, did you hear the background check bill failed

I'm going to hold my opinion as to whether or not the background bill not passing is a fail until after the 2014 congressional elections.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

Shame the Devil and tell the truth... If that were true you'd be driving a fully armed tank to work every day, wouldn't you?

No sir it does not. But our right to life trumps the liberty of all to own military grade weapons. Just rank the AR-15's where they should be - classed with tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers as able to kill way to fucking many Monkeys if any given sociopath decides it might be fun to play that game.


This is NOT rocket science, y'all.

you support tyranny and are anti-constitutional.

I have the right to own any arms that I can afford to buy.

You support the failed idea that taking guns works, and you support this failed idea b/c you refuse to learn the truth.

Aus violent crime went up after the confiscation
Cities with the harshest gun laws have the most crime

Thus proving that if you want to increase the chance of staying alive, have a well armed society.

No Sir, you don't. As evidenced by the fact that Civil Law does NOT allow you or anyone else, no matter their resources, to own a tank or an anti-aircraft gun.

The truth is that limits on weaponry can be, and currently are being set by the government. This discussion has nothing to do with the fact of setting limits or not, just what hardware to include in those limits.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No Sir, you don't. As evidenced by the fact that Civil Law does NOT allow you or anyone else, no matter their resources, to own a tank or an anti-aircraft gun.

The truth is that limits on weaponry can be, and currently are being set by the government. This discussion has nothing to do with the fact of setting limits or not, just what hardware to include in those limits.

The "truth" is that your argument is disingenuous.

A tank is not "arms." A tank is heavy armor. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Basically, this means if you can pick it up and march with it, you have the right to it. Strap an Abrams to your back and march a mile, and your argument will have merit. Until then - it's just gun grabber bullshit.

 

[Spoonman]

Shame the Devil and tell the truth... If that were true you'd be driving a fully armed tank to work every day, wouldn't you?

No sir it does not. But our right to life trumps the liberty of all to own military grade weapons. Just rank the AR-15's where they should be - classed with tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers as able to kill way to fucking many Monkeys if any given sociopath decides it might be fun to play that game.


This is NOT rocket science, y'all.

you support tyranny and are anti-constitutional.

I have the right to own any arms that I can afford to buy.

You support the failed idea that taking guns works, and you support this failed idea b/c you refuse to learn the truth.

Aus violent crime went up after the confiscation
Cities with the harshest gun laws have the most crime

Thus proving that if you want to increase the chance of staying alive, have a well armed society.

No Sir, you don't. As evidenced by the fact that Civil Law does NOT allow you or anyone else, no matter their resources, to own a tank or an anti-aircraft gun.

The truth is that limits on weaponry can be, and currently are being set by the government. This discussion has nothing to do with the fact of setting limits or not, just what hardware to include in those limits.

that does not mean they are right or that they do not violate the constitution. according to james madison, the author of the 2nd amendment, they would violate it

 

[Spoonman]

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. 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, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

-From Number 46, James Madison

 

[AVG-JOE]

No Sir, you don't. As evidenced by the fact that Civil Law does NOT allow you or anyone else, no matter their resources, to own a tank or an anti-aircraft gun.

The truth is that limits on weaponry can be, and currently are being set by the government. This discussion has nothing to do with the fact of setting limits or not, just what hardware to include in those limits.

The "truth" is that your argument is disingenuous.

A tank is not "arms." A tank is heavy armor. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Basically, this means if you can pick it up and march with it, you have the right to it. Strap an Abrams to your back and march a mile, and your argument will have merit. Until then - it's just gun grabber bullshit.

If that were true I could legally own a bazooka, a grenade launcher and a flame thrower which, of course, the government says I can't.

It's not a question of whether or not the government can or can't set limits on what hardware is available to civilians - the proof is that they can and do. The question is what to include in those limits.

 

[AVG-JOE]

you support tyranny and are anti-constitutional.

I have the right to own any arms that I can afford to buy.

You support the failed idea that taking guns works, and you support this failed idea b/c you refuse to learn the truth.

Aus violent crime went up after the confiscation
Cities with the harshest gun laws have the most crime

Thus proving that if you want to increase the chance of staying alive, have a well armed society.

No Sir, you don't. As evidenced by the fact that Civil Law does NOT allow you or anyone else, no matter their resources, to own a tank or an anti-aircraft gun.

The truth is that limits on weaponry can be, and currently are being set by the government. This discussion has nothing to do with the fact of setting limits or not, just what hardware to include in those limits.

that does not mean they are right or that they do not violate the constitution. according to james madison, the author of the 2nd amendment, they would violate it

On that we'll have to agree to disagree. Since the government has indeed already set limits on hardware, precedent seems to favor my argument.

 

[Spoonman]

No Sir, you don't. As evidenced by the fact that Civil Law does NOT allow you or anyone else, no matter their resources, to own a tank or an anti-aircraft gun.

The truth is that limits on weaponry can be, and currently are being set by the government. This discussion has nothing to do with the fact of setting limits or not, just what hardware to include in those limits.

that does not mean they are right or that they do not violate the constitution. according to james madison, the author of the 2nd amendment, they would violate it

On that we'll have to agree to disagree. Since the government has indeed already set limits on hardware, precedent seems to favor my argument.

on this joe, we do disagree. I agree that they have done it, but i believe they have violated the constitution in doing so. Madisons intenet was very clear in writing the second amendment that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that his intent was so the people were never controled by the government. what we have now, even beyond the gun issue is a government that is writing policy and legislation that does not benefit the people. but that benefits them and special intrests. gradually they are gaining more and more control over the public and placing limitations on them. that was never the intent of the framers of our constitution. look at the legislation congress passes that benefit themselves and their special interests at the expense of the people. that is the crime. because the government does it does not make it right

 

[Uncensored2008]

If that were true I could legally own a bazooka, a grenade launcher and a flame thrower which, of course, the government says I can't.

The constitution says you can. The question here is whether you support the constitution, or our rulers?

It's not a question of whether or not the government can or can't set limits on what hardware is available to civilians - the proof is that they can and do. The question is what to include in those limits.

The question is whether the people will allow the government to strip us of civil rights, or if we will resist.

 

[AVG-JOE]

that does not mean they are right or that they do not violate the constitution. according to james madison, the author of the 2nd amendment, they would violate it

On that we'll have to agree to disagree. Since the government has indeed already set limits on hardware, precedent seems to favor my argument.

on this joe, we do disagree. I agree that they have done it, but i believe they have violated the constitution in doing so. Madisons intenet was very clear in writing the second amendment that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that his intent was so the people were never controled by the government. what we have now, even beyond the gun issue is a government that is writing policy and legislation that does not benefit the people. but that benefits them and special intrests. gradually they are gaining more and more control over the public and placing limitations on them. that was never the intent of the framers of our constitution. look at the legislation congress passes that benefit themselves and their special interests at the expense of the people. that is the crime. because the government does it does not make it right

Believe it or not, on this you and I do agree. Not necessarily the guns in particular but on your general assessment of congress.

 

[Spoonman]

On that we'll have to agree to disagree. Since the government has indeed already set limits on hardware, precedent seems to favor my argument.

on this joe, we do disagree. I agree that they have done it, but i believe they have violated the constitution in doing so. Madisons intenet was very clear in writing the second amendment that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that his intent was so the people were never controled by the government. what we have now, even beyond the gun issue is a government that is writing policy and legislation that does not benefit the people. but that benefits them and special intrests. gradually they are gaining more and more control over the public and placing limitations on them. that was never the intent of the framers of our constitution. look at the legislation congress passes that benefit themselves and their special interests at the expense of the people. that is the crime. because the government does it does not make it right

Believe it or not, on this you and I do agree. Not necessarily the guns in particular but on your general assessment of congress.

i have a problem with government passing laws, any laws, where they should have no authority. i also have a problem where they can pass laws that govern themselves separate from the public.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If that were true I could legally own a bazooka, a grenade launcher and a flame thrower which, of course, the government says I can't.

The constitution says you can. The question here is whether you support the constitution, or our rulers?

It's not a question of whether or not the government can or can't set limits on what hardware is available to civilians - the proof is that they can and do. The question is what to include in those limits.

The question is whether the people will allow the government to strip us of civil rights, or if we will resist.

I think that the constitution is flexible enough that The People can, within boundaries, set limits on the people. History is certainly chock full of precedent and examples.

Like drugs - Heroin, coke, crack, meth, alcohol and weed should ALL be up for discussion, and, ass-u-me-ing reasonable heads prevail, alcohol and weed would be allowed for sale and the others would not, because they're too fucking dangerous.

Life is not black and white - discussion is required.

 

[AVG-JOE]

on this joe, we do disagree. I agree that they have done it, but i believe they have violated the constitution in doing so. Madisons intenet was very clear in writing the second amendment that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that his intent was so the people were never controled by the government. what we have now, even beyond the gun issue is a government that is writing policy and legislation that does not benefit the people. but that benefits them and special intrests. gradually they are gaining more and more control over the public and placing limitations on them. that was never the intent of the framers of our constitution. look at the legislation congress passes that benefit themselves and their special interests at the expense of the people. that is the crime. because the government does it does not make it right

Believe it or not, on this you and I do agree. Not necessarily the guns in particular but on your general assessment of congress.

i have a problem with government passing laws, any laws, where they should have no authority. i also have a problem where they can pass laws that govern themselves separate from the public.

Embrace the concept of 'America' and you must embrace the fact that government has no authority except that which it gets from the voters. It's the job of writers like you and I to persuade the voters.

 

[paulitician]

In fairness, some people really are scary-obsessed Gun Nuts. I've witnessed my fair share of em. They hurt the cause. They're convincing more & more Americans to support taking away firearms. Some have taken the whole gun thing way too far. They scare average Americans. It makes people feel many shouldn't have firearms.

For example, this current Ammo Shortage really has brought out the worst in many Gun Owners. Many have simply lost it. And their erratic obsessive behavior is only hurting the cause. I've seen this insane behavior for myself when purchasing Ammo. It's pretty sad. You have to keep your wits about you. That's what's best for the cause.

 

[paulitician]

I've witnessed some pretty nasty temper tantrums while out shopping for ammo. Please don't yell at the poor employee working behind the counter. It's not their fault. Most of em are making barely Minimum Wage for God's sake. There's no need to take your frustration out on them. And that's happening way too much. It's very important we maintain civility & dignity during these times. Some of the awful temper tantrums i've seen really are unforgivable. It's giving Gun Owners a bad name. Remember to be good & decent to others. That's the right the way to go. We'll win more friends & support in the process.