Soft Heads In Senate Gun Control Hearing

[The2ndAmendment]

Who is this belligerent entity about to pounce on the unsuspecting people of the US?

Ask the 6 million Jews killed under Hitler.

Ask the 78 million killed under Mao.

Ask the 8 million under Leopold

Ask the 5 million people under Tojo

Ask the 2 million under Enver...

This list is very long, and comprises of over 320 million people (at minimum). All this occurred in the 20th or 21th Century. It also doesn't include the hundreds of millions raped/mutilated/imprisoned. It also doesn't include the three to four billion that are afraid to suffer those consequences to this very day, since they are disarmed.

 

[idb]

Who is this belligerent entity about to pounce on the unsuspecting people of the US?

Ask the 6 million Jews killed under Hitler.

Ask the 78 million killed under Mao.

Ask the 8 million under Leopold

Ask the 5 million people under Tojo

Ask the 2 million under Enver...

This list is very long, and comprises of over 320 million people (at minimum). All this occurred in the 20th or 21th Century. It also doesn't include the hundreds of millions raped/mutilated/imprisoned. It also doesn't include the three to four billion that are afraid to suffer those consequences to this very day, since they are disarmed.

Well it's lucky for you that you live in the US then isn't it?

I wonder if this paranoia about 'the state' started from a determination to find a case against any form of gun control, and eventually the people making the argument came to actually believe it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Who is this belligerent entity about to pounce on the unsuspecting people of the US?

Ask the 6 million Jews killed under Hitler.

Ask the 78 million killed under Mao.

Ask the 8 million under Leopold

Ask the 5 million people under Tojo

Ask the 2 million under Enver...

This list is very long, and comprises of over 320 million people (at minimum). All this occurred in the 20th or 21th Century. It also doesn't include the hundreds of millions raped/mutilated/imprisoned. It also doesn't include the three to four billion that are afraid to suffer those consequences to this very day, since they are disarmed.

Well it's lucky for you that you live in the US then isn't it?

I wonder if this paranoia about 'the state' started from a determination to find a case against any form of gun control, and eventually the people making the argument came to actually believe it.

Yes, we are lucky that we live in the United States, where the citizenry is armed, preventing our leaders from doing this. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[idb]

Ask the 6 million Jews killed under Hitler.

Ask the 78 million killed under Mao.

Ask the 8 million under Leopold

Ask the 5 million people under Tojo

Ask the 2 million under Enver...

This list is very long, and comprises of over 320 million people (at minimum). All this occurred in the 20th or 21th Century. It also doesn't include the hundreds of millions raped/mutilated/imprisoned. It also doesn't include the three to four billion that are afraid to suffer those consequences to this very day, since they are disarmed.

Well it's lucky for you that you live in the US then isn't it?

I wonder if this paranoia about 'the state' started from a determination to find a case against any form of gun control, and eventually the people making the argument came to actually believe it.

Yes, we are lucky that we live in the United States, where the citizenry is armed, preventing our leaders from doing this. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Too clever for me today!!!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Next?

 

[OriginalShroom]

If I -represented- the anti-gun side, and you've already stated that I/we have nothing to offer, where's the starting point for discussion?

You could TRY to prove me wrong by offering something.
Your repeated failure to do so only bolsters my position that you, indeed, have nothing.

Why?
I assume that you're an honest and thoughtful person.
You've already made it clear that you can't be swayed in your opinions.
There's no point in making an offer.

I will say this though.
Public opinion is showing concern with gun violence and a wish for more regulation of access to guns.
If gun owners take your position and refuse to be involved, they will allow the discussions to be dominated by one side.

Since you are such a supporter of what the voter wants, becomes law, then I am sure that you are against the SCotUS over-turning California's voter passed ban on Gay marriages.

 

[OriginalShroom]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI&feature=player_embedded]GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[nodoginnafight]

As a gun owner I would be just fine with the government enforcing the current laws rather then politically grandstanding new laws. The Democrats/left really want to help right?

IF NRA-written legislation hadn't been introduced and passed to gut the current laws and render them unenforceable, then it's possible that this could help.

I'd favor putting the teeth back into the current laws and making sure law enforcement has the resources to enforce them.

But universal background checks, a sales database, and requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory are also needed to beef up current laws.

I don't favor banning anything or putting an undue burden on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights - and none of these provisions do that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As a gun owner I would be just fine with the government enforcing the current laws rather then politically grandstanding new laws. The Democrats/left really want to help right?

Yeaaaaahhhh.
The state cannot have a monopoly on force when the citizenry retains the right to arms.

When did the state become other than the citizenry?

There is a clear conceptual, historical, political, legal and constitutional discrimination between "the state" and "the people".
Not sure how you do not know this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As a gun owner I would be just fine with the government enforcing the current laws rather then politically grandstanding new laws. The Democrats/left really want to help right?

IF NRA-written legislation hadn't been introduced and passed to gut the current laws and render them unenforceable...

This is a lie.

I don't favor banning anything or putting an undue burden on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights - and none of these provisions do that.

Background checks are, as you agree, a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint goes WELL beyond an "undue burden".

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is a lie.

It is absolutely true. Educate yourself on the Tiahrt Amendments.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Background checks are, as you agree, a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint goes WELL beyond an "undue burden".

If that were ther case SCOTUS would have struck down state laws requiring them.

Any consolation prizes for the loser, Johnny?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie.

It is absolutely true.

If that were true, you could prove it.
But, you cannot prove this - because it is not true.
Thus, you lied.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks are, as you agree, a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint goes WELL beyond an "undue burden".

If that were ther case SCOTUS would have struck down state laws requiring them.

You clearly do not understand how judicual review works.

Tell us again how the court had upheld prior restraint
Tell us again how that precedent supports the idea that background checks are a constitutionally acceptable prior restraint.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is a lie.

It is absolutely true.

If that were true, you could prove it.
But, you cannot prove this - because it is not true.
Thus, you lied.

I note you again dodge the issue:
Background checks are, as you agree, a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint goes WELL beyond an "undue burden".

Google tiahrt amendments.

And if you are a honest person, I'll accept your apology.

Otherwise - get lost.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is absolutely true.

If that were true, you could prove it.
But, you cannot prove this - because it is not true.
Thus, you lied.

I note you again dodge the issue:
Background checks are, as you agree, a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint goes WELL beyond an "undue burden".

Google tiahrt amendments.

Your claim, your responsibility to back it up.
Provide the text and the souce to verify it.
Until then - you're lying.

Tell us again how the court had upheld prior restraint
Tell us again how that precedent supports the idea that background checks are a constitutionally acceptable prior restraint.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If that were true, you could prove it.
But, you cannot prove this - because it is not true.
Thus, you lied.

I note you again dodge the issue:
Background checks are, as you agree, a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint goes WELL beyond an "undue burden".

Google tiahrt amendments.

Your claim, your responsibility to back it up.
Provide the text and the souce to verify it.
Until then - you're lying.

Tell us again how the court had upheld prior restraint
Tell us again how that precedent supports the idea that background checks are a constitutionally acceptable prior restraint.

The fact that you cut out my reference in your first response speaks volumes. I provided you with the reference and YOU chose to ignore and claim I provided none.

Dishonest posters are not rare on these boards, so I won't say I'm shocked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Google tiahrt amendments.

Your claim, your responsibility to back it up.
Provide the text and the souce to verify it.
Until then - you're lying.

Tell us again how the court had upheld prior restraint
Tell us again how that precedent supports the idea that background checks are a constitutionally acceptable prior restraint.

The fact that you cut out my reference in your first response speaks volumes. I provided you with the reference and YOU chose to ignore and claim I provided none.

Provide the text that proves your claim and the souce to verify it.
Until then - you are lying.

Tell us again how the court had upheld prior restraint
Tell us again how that precedent supports the idea that background checks are a constitutionally acceptable prior restraint.

 

[g5000]

As a gun owner I would be just fine with the government enforcing the current laws rather then politically grandstanding new laws. The Democrats/left really want to help right?

IF NRA-written legislation hadn't been introduced and passed to gut the current laws and render them unenforceable...

This is a lie.

The rest of nodoginnafight's post:

...then it's possible that this could help.

I'd favor putting the teeth back into the current laws and making sure law enforcement has the resources to enforce them.

But universal background checks, a sales database, and requiring gun dealers to maintain an inventory are also needed to beef up current laws.

I don't favor banning anything or putting an undue burden on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights - and none of these provisions do that.

Industry pressure hides gun traces, protects dealers from public scrutiny

Under the law, investigators cannot reveal federal firearms tracing information that shows how often a dealer sells guns that end up seized in crimes. The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.

Such information used to be available under a simple Freedom of Information Act request. But seven years ago, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress blacked out the information by passing the so-called Tiahrt amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). The law removed from the public record a government database that traces guns recovered in crimes back to the dealers.

 

[g5000]

If you are a private seller, how could you be sure you are not selling your gun to a mentally imbalanced person? How could you be sure you are not selling your gun to an illegal immigrant? How could you be sure you are not selling your gun to a felon?

What solutions do you guys recommend to prevent such a sale from happening?

How about public access to the gun buyer's registration list which I proposed earlier?