The Right To Bear Arms

[The Derp]

So ZERO negligence does exist.

No. Only degrees of negligence. Negligence is inherent in owning a gun.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Gee I don't know but it's how every single boy in the country got his first gun isn't it?

Is it? You can't say this for sure because you don't know. You're just making a broad, general assumption based on some Mayberry bullshit that you never experienced, but pretend you did for the sake of your shitty argument on an anonymous message board. Parents give guns to their kids, who then take those guns and shoot up schools.

Like I said, there is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership", just degrees of negligence.

In fact I was given 4 guns before I was 18 and not one background check was run because my uncle knew I was not a felon.

I don't even see why you would say this since "responsible gun ownership" would entail being responsible enough to run a background check, whether you think it will turn up something or not. Running a background check is an act of responsibility that you're saying "responsible gun owners" don't need to do. So they're not responsible gun owners if they aren't acting responsibly by running a background check.

That's why your argument is self-defeating. You claim these people are responsible, yet they don't act responsibly.

But we know in your 2 dimensional world that things like the situation above can never ever happen.Tell me do you think you should get car insurance surcharges because some drivers speed?Should you lose your license because some people drive drunk?

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about because running a background check on someone else has no fucking effect on you. You running a background check doesn't mean you will lose your guns if the person you ran the check on failed it. And if you want to treat guns like cars, I'm all for it. Cars have to be registered with the state, they have to be inspected yearly, you have to have a license to operate one, you have to take it in for performance tests, you have to renew your license and take a test, and you have to have your car insured.

Is the answer to drunk driving to flood the road with drunk drivers? That's your "more guns are the answer" solution, "responsible gun owner". And BTW - since 1980, drunk driving deaths have been cut in half. Why? Laws, rules, regulations, and a public campaign discouraging it. So thanks for helping me make the case that laws, rules, regulations, and public campaigns work.

That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.

And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible so he is indeed being responsible.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So ZERO negligence does exist.

No. Only degrees of negligence. Negligence is inherent in owning a gun.

And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.

But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms

 

[The Derp]

You want to call ALL gun owners negligent.

That's because they are. There is no zero degree negligence when it comes to gun ownership. Simply owning a gun is an act of negligence. How you manage that gun determines what level of negligence you have. For as many as 600,000 gun owners a year, they are extremely negligent. And since there's no way to determine on the surface who is negligent and who isn't, we must work from the assumption that all of you are equally negligent, and your level of negligence is determined over the course of your gun ownership.

YYou're just proving yourself incapable of intelligent thought

You're just a fucking pussy who is completely irresponsible and negligent.

 

[The Derp]

Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?

I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.

And you reached this conclusion based on a gif of a cartoon cow.

No, I reached that conclusion based on the posts defending acts of negligence and irresponsibility. That impotent GIF was just the icing on the cake.

 

[Rustic]

Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?

I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.

Lol
Well, someone’s firearm ownership is none of your business. Live with it bedwetter

 

[impuretrash]

Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?

I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.

And you reached this conclusion based on a gif of a cartoon cow.

No, I reached that conclusion based on the posts defending acts of negligence and irresponsibility. That impotent GIF was just the icing on the cake.

The premise for your argument seems awfully silly, not sure if serious or a troll.

 

[The Derp]

That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.

We have to assume that every gun owner is negligent because as many as 600,000 of them are pilfered of their guns every year. So it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.

And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible so he is indeed being responsible.

It doesn't fucking matter what you feel to be true in your fat gut or what your garbage instincts tell you.

Running a background check is an act of responsibility. By not running one, you are acting irresponsibly.

 

[The Derp]

And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.

But that's the thing, dude...because you are using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as your argument that people are "responsible gun owners" until they're not, you've set the stage for all of you to be deemed negligent. If everyone is something until the moment they aren't, then that "thing" they are is bullshit. All gun owners are inherently negligent, and now we're finding out the degree to which they are individually. We find that degree if they are; unwilling to do background checks on every transfer and transaction, can't keep track of the guns you already have, don't even report a gun as stolen to the cops.

It's a sliding scale of negligence, but it's always inherently negligent. The only way it isn't would be if *0* guns were stolen a year. Fuck dude, you can't even get 100% of gun owners to report their guns stolen. That's negligence and irresponsibility. So you can't argue that you're responsible since you haven't acted responsibly.

But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms

Well, for starters, you said you don't do universal background checks. So that's negligence right off the bat.

 

[The Derp]

Well, someone’s firearm ownership is none of your business. Live with it bedwetter

But it is my business because you negligent people can't seem to keep track of your guns. And when one goes missing, you don't even notify the police. So then it becomes my business because your negligence leads to guns being put on the street where they pose a threat to society.

All because you can't be expected to act responsibly.

 

[The Derp]

The premise for your argument seems awfully silly, not sure if serious or a troll.

You know, if these kinds of impotent responses are all you're capable of doing, I would recommend just not responding at all.

Nothing about what I am saying is silly. The facts are that you gun owners aren't responsible people; you can't keep track of your guns; you don't notify the cops when one of your guns is stolen; you don't run background checks.

These are not the actions of responsible people; these are the actions of negligent people.

 

[impuretrash]

The premise for your argument seems awfully silly, not sure if serious or a troll.

You know, if these kinds of impotent responses are all you're capable of doing, I would recommend just not responding at all.

Nothing about what I am saying is silly. The facts are that you gun owners aren't responsible people; you can't keep track of your guns; you don't notify the cops when one of your guns is stolen; you don't run background checks.

These are not the actions of responsible people; these are the actions of negligent people.

Sorry, I was only being honest. If I took your argument at face value I would have typed something more elaborate but I didn't want to waste my time and be another one of your patsies. I'm convinced now that you are being serious.

What you're doing is very similar to people who blame all muslims for terrorist attacks... I haven't read the entire thread but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already pointed this out to you. Also where'd you get this idea that gun owners don't report their weapons being stolen?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You want to call ALL gun owners negligent.

That's because they are. There is no zero degree negligence when it comes to gun ownership. Simply owning a gun is an act of negligence. How you manage that gun determines what level of negligence you have. For as many as 600,000 gun owners a year, they are extremely negligent. And since there's no way to determine on the surface who is negligent and who isn't, we must work from the assumption that all of you are equally negligent, and your level of negligence is determined over the course of your gun ownership.

YYou're just proving yourself incapable of intelligent thought

You're just a fucking pussy who is completely irresponsible and negligent.

Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence

 

[Skull Pilot]

And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.

But that's the thing, dude...because you are using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as your argument that people are "responsible gun owners" until they're not, you've set the stage for all of you to be deemed negligent. If everyone is something until the moment they aren't, then that "thing" they are is bullshit. All gun owners are inherently negligent, and now we're finding out the degree to which they are individually. We find that degree if they are; unwilling to do background checks on every transfer and transaction, can't keep track of the guns you already have, don't even report a gun as stolen to the cops.

It's a sliding scale of negligence, but it's always inherently negligent. The only way it isn't would be if *0* guns were stolen a year. Fuck dude, you can't even get 100% of gun owners to report their guns stolen. That's negligence and irresponsibility. So you can't argue that you're responsible since you haven't acted responsibly.

But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms

Well, for starters, you said you don't do universal background checks. So that's negligence right off the bat.

I have never sold or given a firearm to anyone so why would have I ever have performed a background check on anyone?

I have passed countless background checks though

 

[Skull Pilot]

And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.

But that's the thing, dude...because you are using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as your argument that people are "responsible gun owners" until they're not, you've set the stage for all of you to be deemed negligent. If everyone is something until the moment they aren't, then that "thing" they are is bullshit. All gun owners are inherently negligent, and now we're finding out the degree to which they are individually. We find that degree if they are; unwilling to do background checks on every transfer and transaction, can't keep track of the guns you already have, don't even report a gun as stolen to the cops.

It's a sliding scale of negligence, but it's always inherently negligent. The only way it isn't would be if *0* guns were stolen a year. Fuck dude, you can't even get 100% of gun owners to report their guns stolen. That's negligence and irresponsibility. So you can't argue that you're responsible since you haven't acted responsibly.

But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms

Well, for starters, you said you don't do universal background checks. So that's negligence right off the bat.

That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.

We have to assume that every gun owner is negligent because as many as 600,000 of them are pilfered of their guns every year. So it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.

And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible so he is indeed being responsible.

It doesn't fucking matter what you feel to be true in your fat gut or what your garbage instincts tell you.

Running a background check is an act of responsibility. By not running one, you are acting irresponsibly.

That's not what the law says

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, someone’s firearm ownership is none of your business. Live with it bedwetter

But it is my business because you negligent people can't seem to keep track of your guns. And when one goes missing, you don't even notify the police. So then it becomes my business because your negligence leads to guns being put on the street where they pose a threat to society.

All because you can't be expected to act responsibly.

And it only takes one instance to prove you wrong.

I know exactly where all my guns are

Therefore you are wrong

Q.E.D.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.

We have to assume that every gun owner is negligent because as many as 600,000 of them are pilfered of their guns every year. So it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.

And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible so he is indeed being responsible.

It doesn't fucking matter what you feel to be true in your fat gut or what your garbage instincts tell you.

Running a background check is an act of responsibility. By not running one, you are acting irresponsibly.

As many as.

That's like saying virtually spotless. Something is either spotless or it isn't.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Of course your State might have something to say about that. We are not talking about States Rights here but Federal Rights.

Well...for the record...state’s have no say in anything that is constitutional. They cannot create a limiting your 1st Amendment because the constitution trumps state law.

Not in the case of Weapons. If a State, County or Municipal decides to limit weapons it can do it according to the Supreme Court. This gets securely into States Rights. The 2nd Amendment only pertains to the Federal Government. It limits the Federal Government only. For instance, some states require you to have a special license to carry a gun. Actually, most do. Some states, like where I am at, have an older law that states if you do carry a weapon it must be in plain site and must always be at the ready. Many of the old west states have that law. Meanwhile, some states like Ill and NY says you can own a gun but to carry it or transport it you must have a license to carry it. Some states don't require a reason for you to receive that license but others have specific reasons that you must meet to receive that license. This thing is why the CCW isn't US Wide. Meaning, if I get a CCW from Colorado, NY won't recognize it because it has completely different laws pertaining to concealed weapons. But Texas will. You may not think that is right but I say if you don't like the state you are living in move to one that you do like. I am a huge proponent for States Rights. And each state must take care of it's own.

Like Florida. They just had a mass school shooting done by a 19 year old. The Students and many Parents don't want the AR to be completely banned. But they are proposing an age limit of purchase: 21 years of age. They are trying to present it to the Florida State Government. The Florida State Government refuses to even discuss it. Now, this proposal does sound reasonable. But the problem is, the ones in power will not even sit down to discuss it. The Students argument is that a 19 year old isn't old enough to buy booze but they can go in and get an AR in less than 30 minutes anywhere in the State. Yes, young people can illegally purchase or get booze but most don't bother. You can't go into any corner liquor store and purchase it like you can a gun at a gun shop. I have mixed feelings on the Booze age and was lucky that I turned 21 at the time they passed the law. But others that were in the Military were under 21 and it took an act of congress and an Order from the President for the Military to stop serving under 21s. But the next day, life went on anyway. The Sun even came up.

The problem is, our legislators listen to the big donors and not people that they believe that will affect their careers the least. You, as an individual, will have little contact with your congress critter, Governor or President. Unless you have a lot of money to invest in the reelection. This is probably a bigger problem than any gun legislation. One that if we don't start addressing any Democracy or Republic will be forever gone if it isn't already.

The Federal Law already has placed an 18 year old limit on purchasing fire arms. Is that against the 2nd Amendment? Should we throw out that restriction? Or can a State fine tune it to place the limit at 21? Yes it can. This is one area where the shooting may not have taken place when it did. By forcing the Ex Student to have to go to other means to purchase the AR, it might have bought enough time for all the triggers to go off and for him to be stopped. This is the Students argument. Yet no one seems to want to listen. I listen and I agree.

The 2nd amendment is the minimum. A State can tailor it to their own needs. And if you don't like it, move to one that you agree with.

 

[The Derp]

What you're doing is very similar to people who blame all muslims for terrorist attacks... I haven't read the entire thread but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already pointed this out to you. Also where'd you get this idea that gun owners don't report their weapons being stolen?

Look man...you guys claim to be responsible, yet the actions say otherwise. You have "responsible gun owners" on this very thread saying they won't and don't act responsibly. So "responsible gun owner" is the same fallacy as "No true Scotsman".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your 2nd amendment rights would be secured and not infringed one bit. You still have the right to possess, purchase, transport etc. your own weapons. It's just one more application, that's it. They can't turn you down if you are able to legally purchase firearms with a simple background check.

This is what is being proposed even my a bunch of scared School Children and their parents. Not banning a damned thing.

1. That is an infringement whether you want to admit it or not.

2. More importantly - what you are proposing here is already the case. The Brady Law made an F.B.I. background check a requirement for every firearm purchase (from a dealer). And there is no cost associated with it. None. I’ve never purchased a firearm and not had an F.B.I. background check (including when I’ve purchased from a large dealer that is friends of my family). They followed the law by the book (as all dealers do considering the legal ramifications of not obeying the law) and contacted the F.B.I. for the check and subsequent sale despite knowing that I had no criminal or mental health background.

So the only concern you have is a private citizen-to-citizen sale. Those are extremely rare in the grand scheme of things and almost completely nonexistent in terms of a sale to someone with a criminal background. And there is nothing that can be done about those anyway. The government has absolutely no authority to regulate or otherwise dictate what I do with my private property - including if I choose to sell it.

There was also a Ban on the AR or Assault Rifle at the same time. It was allowed to run out in 1998. It really wasn't a ban, it was a reclassification of the weapon class. You could still buy it, possess it, sell it, use it, etc. but you had to have the lowest firearms license. When it ran out, you didn't need any special license. Had it been in place, it would have prevented all but two of the Mass Shootings from happening so easy. The one where the 9mm and assorted guns and the Nevada Shooting would have happened exactly as planned regardless in my opinion.

You are incorrect. It costs me 7 bucks a pop to purchase a weapon for the background check. You can call it a tax or processing fee, either way. But it's not free.

Since you don't seem to have a problem with background checks at dealers, what's the problem expanding it to the Gun Shows and Online Sales? Yes, you are correct, there isn't a whole lot can be done about private sales from one person to another. The private sales are not very common. But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows. Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot. The argument that it can't be done is a lie. In today's information age, the Gun Show seller can always do it if they want. The tools are available and they are inexpensive. Even if it means using one of the Gun Show Dealers that have that capability and have them run it for you. And buying from an Online Source can be handled exactly the same way. They can require you to go to the nearest Gun Dealer of your choice and have them run the background check.

Even with all that I am requesting, if it were to happen, Life would go on and the sun would even come up in the morning. If we don't do something there are those that the life won't go on and the sun coming up won't matter.