Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Same here. I can make my purchase about 1 mile from my house, but would have to drive about 30 miles north to get the signature of the County Sheriff for the transfer stamp. Ma Deuce with 1,000 rounds belted) is a bit dear.... $12 K.It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one. I thought that was clear. If you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.
If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license. Isn't that obvious?
So you believe. Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, but I could have...if I had started the process today, I could have had it by-at the latest-Thursday.
"Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?"None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.
The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.
How would you know what a thinking person might consider?
Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns? Never. Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "panacea" or understand the meaning of mitigate
.
And if you do know the meaning of both words, than you are a liar (I don't discount what I consider true, that you are ignorant and idiotic).
No. You haven't actually made that claim, but the title of the thread is "keeping guns from criminals Liberals, what is your plan?
You have proposed a "plan". A logical person would assume you have responded to the question posed in the OP.
A logical person would wonder why such a stupid question was posed.
licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms? That's funny. I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition. It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
There is no need to license anyone.
Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
So why have laws?
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.
Much easier to make sure any gun I sell is sold to someone who does not KNOW who I am. First names only, meet at a neutral location, contact only through a throwaway cell phone bought with cash. Maybe rent a car or van so the guy doesn't know what state I live in.
Selling guns is about to become an even riskier business. The loopholes are being closed.
Assumes facts not in evidence. (In other words: you are pulling the "facts" out of your sphincter.)
Be very careful who you sell firearms to. You will be held accountable.
Did you not read the post you quoted, then?
Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms? That's funny. I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition. It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?
Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza? If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?
Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms? That's funny. I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition. It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?
Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza? If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?
Translation:Well, I suppose I'm willing to agree we disagree. Too bad you're not."Limits"Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
I used the word "limits".
Everything you have proposed further limits on the rights of the law abiding.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns
Both are unnecessary preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; they infringe upon the right to arms exactly as much as they infringe upon the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right to an abortion.Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Never mind that you know you have no capacity to soundly show that either are necessary.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
He's also right if they aren't in a militia.If they're in a militia, you're right.All Americans are covered under the second amendment not just those with licenses or passes some test you make up.Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own gunslicensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Still waiting for your response...If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?
Still waiting for your response:One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
Still waiting for your response:One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.Because I say so...Still waiting for your response:One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Hey look, Gun Nuts creep people out. They're like loony drug addicts. The more loony they get about guns, the more people wanna ban them. They see them as sick individuals. Many Gun Owners are their own worst enemies. Their behavior does them in.
Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.Because I say so...Still waiting for your response:One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.Because I say so...Still waiting for your response:One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself. I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers. But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively. He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
