To stop criminals from getting gunsBrand violent felons with anti gun tattoos so they can't buy guns

[2aguy]

I don't want violent criminals getting guns. It just gives the anti freedom, anti gun extremists easy arguments to deny us of our 2nd Amendment rights.

the problem…how do you actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not affecting the law abiding.

Now anti gun extremists only care about the law abiding citizens who want guns….so they come up with dumb ideas like worthless licensing of gun owners and registering guns. Neither of which effect criminals or mass shooters, but do target law abiding citizens, the very people not abusing guns.

So what to do? I just came up with it……Brand violent felons with marks that will make it impossible for them to get guns through legal channels.

I think a large brand on the upper left arm would work. Go to a gun store, or a private sale, and they ask….show me your left arm. If they see the brand, they know they can't sell the gun. This mark is the easiest, most effective means of preventing criminals from getting guns through legal channels, and it does not affect law abiding citizens in any way.

Also…..if a felon with the brand is caught in possession of a gun at home or on their person….20 years in jail.

I am looking for intelligent discussion of this. It works, doesn't effect law abiding gun owners,and doesn't create a paper trail on law abiding gun owners.


Any thoughts on this idea?

I believe the brands could be easily done by a medical professional with local anesthetic so there would be no issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

I had thought about a tattoo, but that would not be as permanent and could be tattooed over.

An amputtee…..they could put it on the other arm or somewhere else.

gun control is not about criminal control

the branded could simply buy them on the black market

or trade them in their next dope deal

Yes…they would…….I know that, I am not a gun grabber and I know that no gun control law keeps guns out of the hands of criminals….this is not for that….this is to end background checks for law abiding citizens….

I know it won't stop criminals from getting guns, I am not a gun grabber after all, and I understand truth and reality. What this specifically does is end the discussion of "universal background checks" and puts the focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. There would never be a need to license owners, register guns or force law abiding gun owners to undergo background checks ever again….their un branded shoulder would allow them to go into a gun store pay for a gun and simply walk out…without a background check, and no permanent record of their owning a gun.

 

[2aguy]

I don't want violent criminals getting guns. It just gives the anti freedom, anti gun extremists easy arguments to deny us of our 2nd Amendment rights.

the problem…how do you actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not affecting the law abiding.

Now anti gun extremists only care about the law abiding citizens who want guns….so they come up with dumb ideas like worthless licensing of gun owners and registering guns. Neither of which effect criminals or mass shooters, but do target law abiding citizens, the very people not abusing guns.

So what to do? I just came up with it……Brand violent felons with marks that will make it impossible for them to get guns through legal channels.

I think a large brand on the upper left arm would work. Go to a gun store, or a private sale, and they ask….show me your left arm. If they see the brand, they know they can't sell the gun. This mark is the easiest, most effective means of preventing criminals from getting guns through legal channels, and it does not affect law abiding citizens in any way.

Also…..if a felon with the brand is caught in possession of a gun at home or on their person….20 years in jail.

I am looking for intelligent discussion of this. It works, doesn't effect law abiding gun owners,and doesn't create a paper trail on law abiding gun owners.


Any thoughts on this idea?

I believe the brands could be easily done by a medical professional with local anesthetic so there would be no issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

I had thought about a tattoo, but that would not be as permanent and could be tattooed over.

An amputtee…..they could put it on the other arm or somewhere else.

gun control is not about criminal control

the branded could simply buy them on the black market

or trade them in their next dope deal

Do you see how this ends background checks for law abiding citizens? The check would simply be the clerk at the gun store saying, "please show me your left shoulder." When a law abiding citizen had no brand/mark….they can pay for their gun and take it without a background check, while a criminal would be stopped at the gun store. It would be instantaneous, and no record would be kept on any part of the transaction.

That is why it is a good idea and how it works.

 

[candycorn]

Hmmm...the anti gunners are posting all over the board, but not here........I know why...this takes away the need for registering guns, universal background checks and licensing gun owners....and that is not what they want...they want the focus on the law abiding gun owner, not the criminal, since the criminal will always get the gun.

I posted here. I didn't comment on your idiotic idea. We don't do that here.

You are a lefty so you have no moral compass…..the socialists in Germany tattooed innocent men, women and children with no recourse to the law……..and then the socialists murdered them.
This process would entail someone breaking the law, by being a violent criminal, hurting innocent men, women or children. They would be arrested by lawful police officers, presented with charges, represented by an attorney, appointed by the court if they couldn't afford one, given a trial with a jury of their peers, and then if they are found guilty of committing a violent felony, where they hurt or tried to hurt innocent men, women and children, and then convicted and made into felons who can no longer own guns….then they would get the brand on the shoulder.
Big difference…..when you grow a moral compass you will understand the difference.

Yeah idiot; that is why we have prisons...to punish those convicted of violating the law. Lifelong branding should be reserved (if for anyone) for Nazis and people like you who sympathize with them.

 

[candycorn]

If your increase the price and make the penalty stiffer for selling illegal guns, you dry up the supply.

Gee, if you dry up the supply, you raise the price even further.

Raise the price, criminals (who are usually on the bottom rung of the income ladder) can't afford guns.

Fewer guns, less shootings.

Simple equation.

guns are free for the guy who stole them….

Fewer guns, less shootings.

Not true, more Americans, law abiding Americans, own guns and gun murder has gone down, not up. So you are wrong.

Speaking of those who are not law abiding. See above and try hard to read what I wrote.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah...if a gun seller sees a tattoo...that'll stop them:

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.

It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Yeah, when the democrats tried to use poll taxes to deny the right to vote to blacks, that pretty much settled the idea that taxing a right out of existence was constitutional.

The Democratic Party has evolved. Others have not apparently.

 

[dannyboys]

I don't want violent criminals getting guns. It just gives the anti freedom, anti gun extremists easy arguments to deny us of our 2nd Amendment rights.

the problem…how do you actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not affecting the law abiding.

Now anti gun extremists only care about the law abiding citizens who want guns….so they come up with dumb ideas like worthless licensing of gun owners and registering guns. Neither of which effect criminals or mass shooters, but do target law abiding citizens, the very people not abusing guns.

So what to do? I just came up with it……Brand violent felons with marks that will make it impossible for them to get guns through legal channels.

I think a large brand on the upper left arm would work. Go to a gun store, or a private sale, and they ask….show me your left arm. If they see the brand, they know they can't sell the gun. This mark is the easiest, most effective means of preventing criminals from getting guns through legal channels, and it does not affect law abiding citizens in any way.

Also…..if a felon with the brand is caught in possession of a gun at home or on their person….20 years in jail.

I am looking for intelligent discussion of this. It works, doesn't effect law abiding gun owners,and doesn't create a paper trail on law abiding gun owners.


Any thoughts on this idea?

I believe the brands could be easily done by a medical professional with local anesthetic so there would be no issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

I had thought about a tattoo, but that would not be as permanent and could be tattooed over.

An amputtee…..they could put it on the other arm or somewhere else.

Look! You can 'brand' every felon on the fucking forehead "Don't sell me a gun. I'm a convicted felon". It wouldn't make the slightest difference.
How do the subhumans get guns?
They buy them from criminals who bought them from criminals who either stole them or, in most cases, were purchased from gun smugglers from Mexico who bought them by the shipping container from manufacturers from Central Europe. The Mexican drug cartels pay for the guns with heroin etc which is shipped back to Central Europe.

I know it won't stop criminals from getting guns, I am not a gun grabber after all, and I understand truth and reality. What this specifically does is end the discussion of "universal background checks" and puts the focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. There would never be a need to license owners, register guns or force law abiding gun owners to undergo background checks ever again….their un branded shoulder would allow them to go into a gun store pay for a gun and simply walk out…without a background check, and no permanent record of their owning a gun.

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.
Eastern european arms manufacturers are sending container loads of VERY cheap handguns specifically made for the Mexican drug cartels who in turn pay the manufacturers with heroin etc. These cheap hand guns go directly into the inner cities where anyone can get one for the price of a twelve pack of Bud Light.
The handguns are literally not made to have more than one clip fired through it. The gun on the street comes with one loaded clip. That's it. Try to fire a second clip and you're likely to blow your hand off when the gun barrel explodes.
Your fantasy of having anyone without a 'brand' walking into any store and walking out without having to have a background check is ludicrous.

 

[candycorn]

I don't want violent criminals getting guns. It just gives the anti freedom, anti gun extremists easy arguments to deny us of our 2nd Amendment rights.

the problem…how do you actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not affecting the law abiding.

Now anti gun extremists only care about the law abiding citizens who want guns….so they come up with dumb ideas like worthless licensing of gun owners and registering guns. Neither of which effect criminals or mass shooters, but do target law abiding citizens, the very people not abusing guns.

So what to do? I just came up with it……Brand violent felons with marks that will make it impossible for them to get guns through legal channels.

I think a large brand on the upper left arm would work. Go to a gun store, or a private sale, and they ask….show me your left arm. If they see the brand, they know they can't sell the gun. This mark is the easiest, most effective means of preventing criminals from getting guns through legal channels, and it does not affect law abiding citizens in any way.

Also…..if a felon with the brand is caught in possession of a gun at home or on their person….20 years in jail.

I am looking for intelligent discussion of this. It works, doesn't effect law abiding gun owners,and doesn't create a paper trail on law abiding gun owners.


Any thoughts on this idea?

I believe the brands could be easily done by a medical professional with local anesthetic so there would be no issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

I had thought about a tattoo, but that would not be as permanent and could be tattooed over.

An amputtee…..they could put it on the other arm or somewhere else.

Look! You can 'brand' every felon on the fucking forehead "Don't sell me a gun. I'm a convicted felon". It wouldn't make the slightest difference.
How do the subhumans get guns?
They buy them from criminals who bought them from criminals who either stole them or, in most cases, were purchased from gun smugglers from Mexico who bought them by the shipping container from manufacturers from Central Europe. The Mexican drug cartels pay for the guns with heroin etc which is shipped back to Central Europe.

I know it won't stop criminals from getting guns, I am not a gun grabber after all, and I understand truth and reality. What this specifically does is end the discussion of "universal background checks" and puts the focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. There would never be a need to license owners, register guns or force law abiding gun owners to undergo background checks ever again….their un branded shoulder would allow them to go into a gun store pay for a gun and simply walk out…without a background check, and no permanent record of their owning a gun.

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.
Eastern european arms manufacturers are sending container loads of VERY cheap handguns specifically made for the Mexican drug cartels who in turn pay the manufacturers with heroin etc. These cheap hand guns go directly into the inner cities where anyone can get one for the price of a twelve pack of Bud Light.
The handguns are literally not made to have more than one clip fired through it. The gun on the street comes with one loaded clip. That's it. Try to fire a second clip and you're likely to blow your hand off when the gun barrel explodes.
Your fantasy of having anyone without a 'brand' walking into any store and walking out without having to have a background check is ludicrous.

That is why you need to increase the price.

I don't know many people who do not want a mink coat, a Ferrari, a 75' yacht, a personal jetpack, a Gulfstream VII airplane or tickets to the Super Bowl.

Do you know why most people do not have mink coats, Ferraris, a 75' yacht, a jetpack, a Gulfstream VII jet, or tickets to the super bowl?

It isn't because they don't want them.
It isn't because they are not available.

It is because of the price.

You drive the price of guns upward and wow, you'll see them disappear from the street and you'll see them become as ubiquitous as minks and Ferraris.

Intelligently make it to where the costs are too high you'll see drug dealers have to resort to other means of violence.

 

[dannyboys]

I don't want violent criminals getting guns. It just gives the anti freedom, anti gun extremists easy arguments to deny us of our 2nd Amendment rights.

the problem…how do you actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not affecting the law abiding.

Now anti gun extremists only care about the law abiding citizens who want guns….so they come up with dumb ideas like worthless licensing of gun owners and registering guns. Neither of which effect criminals or mass shooters, but do target law abiding citizens, the very people not abusing guns.

So what to do? I just came up with it……Brand violent felons with marks that will make it impossible for them to get guns through legal channels.

I think a large brand on the upper left arm would work. Go to a gun store, or a private sale, and they ask….show me your left arm. If they see the brand, they know they can't sell the gun. This mark is the easiest, most effective means of preventing criminals from getting guns through legal channels, and it does not affect law abiding citizens in any way.

Also…..if a felon with the brand is caught in possession of a gun at home or on their person….20 years in jail.

I am looking for intelligent discussion of this. It works, doesn't effect law abiding gun owners,and doesn't create a paper trail on law abiding gun owners.


Any thoughts on this idea?

I believe the brands could be easily done by a medical professional with local anesthetic so there would be no issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

I had thought about a tattoo, but that would not be as permanent and could be tattooed over.

An amputtee…..they could put it on the other arm or somewhere else.

Look! You can 'brand' every felon on the fucking forehead "Don't sell me a gun. I'm a convicted felon". It wouldn't make the slightest difference.
How do the subhumans get guns?
They buy them from criminals who bought them from criminals who either stole them or, in most cases, were purchased from gun smugglers from Mexico who bought them by the shipping container from manufacturers from Central Europe. The Mexican drug cartels pay for the guns with heroin etc which is shipped back to Central Europe.

I know it won't stop criminals from getting guns, I am not a gun grabber after all, and I understand truth and reality. What this specifically does is end the discussion of "universal background checks" and puts the focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. There would never be a need to license owners, register guns or force law abiding gun owners to undergo background checks ever again….their un branded shoulder would allow them to go into a gun store pay for a gun and simply walk out…without a background check, and no permanent record of their owning a gun.

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.
Eastern european arms manufacturers are sending container loads of VERY cheap handguns specifically made for the Mexican drug cartels who in turn pay the manufacturers with heroin etc. These cheap hand guns go directly into the inner cities where anyone can get one for the price of a twelve pack of Bud Light.
The handguns are literally not made to have more than one clip fired through it. The gun on the street comes with one loaded clip. That's it. Try to fire a second clip and you're likely to blow your hand off when the gun barrel explodes.
Your fantasy of having anyone without a 'brand' walking into any store and walking out without having to have a background check is ludicrous.

That is why you need to increase the price.

I don't know many people who do not want a mink coat, a Ferrari, a 75' yacht, a personal jetpack, a Gulfstream VII airplane or tickets to the Super Bowl.

Do you know why most people do not have mink coats, Ferraris, a 75' yacht, a jetpack, a Gulfstream VII jet, or tickets to the super bowl?

It isn't because they don't want them.
It isn't because they are not available.

It is because of the price.

You drive the price of guns upward and wow, you'll see them disappear from the street and you'll see them become as ubiquitous as minks and Ferraris.

Intelligently make it to where the costs are too high you'll see drug dealers have to resort to other means of violence.

Mexican drug cartels and E. european arms manufacturers are NEVER going to "drive the price up" on guns or dope. They are quite happy keeping the inner city drug/gun/thug culture just they way it is.
That way the drug lords and the arms manufacturers can give away mink coats and drive Ferraris and have luxury yachts.
They keep the supply of heroin etc and handguns in the places where there is the most demand. IE inner cities.
You are obviously 'missing a brick'.
Start another thread. How about why it's a good idea to artificially change the value of the currency system? 'Make hundred dollar bills worth ten cents and one dollar bills worth a thousand dollars and everyone will be millionaires overnight'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah...if a gun seller sees a tattoo...that'll stop them:

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.
It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Taxing a right with the purpose of restricting its exercise infringes upon that right.
Doing so for guns violates the constitution in the same way as it does for abortion, going to church or holding a parade.

 

[M14 Shooter]

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.

Clearly, this illustrates why making it harder for law abiding to but a gun will not affect a criminal's ability to get one.

 

[candycorn]

I don't want violent criminals getting guns. It just gives the anti freedom, anti gun extremists easy arguments to deny us of our 2nd Amendment rights.

the problem…how do you actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals while not affecting the law abiding.

Now anti gun extremists only care about the law abiding citizens who want guns….so they come up with dumb ideas like worthless licensing of gun owners and registering guns. Neither of which effect criminals or mass shooters, but do target law abiding citizens, the very people not abusing guns.

So what to do? I just came up with it……Brand violent felons with marks that will make it impossible for them to get guns through legal channels.

I think a large brand on the upper left arm would work. Go to a gun store, or a private sale, and they ask….show me your left arm. If they see the brand, they know they can't sell the gun. This mark is the easiest, most effective means of preventing criminals from getting guns through legal channels, and it does not affect law abiding citizens in any way.

Also…..if a felon with the brand is caught in possession of a gun at home or on their person….20 years in jail.

I am looking for intelligent discussion of this. It works, doesn't effect law abiding gun owners,and doesn't create a paper trail on law abiding gun owners.


Any thoughts on this idea?

I believe the brands could be easily done by a medical professional with local anesthetic so there would be no issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

I had thought about a tattoo, but that would not be as permanent and could be tattooed over.

An amputtee…..they could put it on the other arm or somewhere else.

Look! You can 'brand' every felon on the fucking forehead "Don't sell me a gun. I'm a convicted felon". It wouldn't make the slightest difference.
How do the subhumans get guns?
They buy them from criminals who bought them from criminals who either stole them or, in most cases, were purchased from gun smugglers from Mexico who bought them by the shipping container from manufacturers from Central Europe. The Mexican drug cartels pay for the guns with heroin etc which is shipped back to Central Europe.

I know it won't stop criminals from getting guns, I am not a gun grabber after all, and I understand truth and reality. What this specifically does is end the discussion of "universal background checks" and puts the focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. There would never be a need to license owners, register guns or force law abiding gun owners to undergo background checks ever again….their un branded shoulder would allow them to go into a gun store pay for a gun and simply walk out…without a background check, and no permanent record of their owning a gun.

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.
Eastern european arms manufacturers are sending container loads of VERY cheap handguns specifically made for the Mexican drug cartels who in turn pay the manufacturers with heroin etc. These cheap hand guns go directly into the inner cities where anyone can get one for the price of a twelve pack of Bud Light.
The handguns are literally not made to have more than one clip fired through it. The gun on the street comes with one loaded clip. That's it. Try to fire a second clip and you're likely to blow your hand off when the gun barrel explodes.
Your fantasy of having anyone without a 'brand' walking into any store and walking out without having to have a background check is ludicrous.

That is why you need to increase the price.

I don't know many people who do not want a mink coat, a Ferrari, a 75' yacht, a personal jetpack, a Gulfstream VII airplane or tickets to the Super Bowl.

Do you know why most people do not have mink coats, Ferraris, a 75' yacht, a jetpack, a Gulfstream VII jet, or tickets to the super bowl?

It isn't because they don't want them.
It isn't because they are not available.

It is because of the price.

You drive the price of guns upward and wow, you'll see them disappear from the street and you'll see them become as ubiquitous as minks and Ferraris.

Intelligently make it to where the costs are too high you'll see drug dealers have to resort to other means of violence.

Mexican drug cartels and E. european arms manufacturers are NEVER going to "drive the price up" on guns or dope. They are quite happy keeping the inner city drug/gun/thug culture just they way it is.

There are steps you can take. For example, you change the priorities of the National police forces. Does the NSA really have to listen to so much chatter? Does the FBI really need to worry about pirated music? I say get the military involved as well. I think it's a matter of national security.

Your surrender posture is silly.

Start another thread. How about why it's a good idea to artificially change the value of the currency system? 'Make hundred dollar bills worth ten cents and one dollar bills worth a thousand dollars and everyone will be millionaires overnight'.

Artificially is your word.

This is the outline of the way it will work. On the legal side:

I described it earlier in this thread. Simply make the stores that sell the guns buy a bond for each weapon. They stock 3,000 guns, they have 3,000 bonds. So stores buy fewer. That dries up supply because manufacturers will not be making so many weapons. Anyway, when they sell the weapon, the buyer buys a bond to go along with it. So a $500 gun now costs, for the sake of argument $1,500. The "bond" is $1,000 and matures in, lets say, 30 years. You can buy as many guns as you can afford but each gun will need it's own "bond". But for the sake of this example, lets stick with a purchase of a single firearm.

The $1,000 is invested in the State's pension plan or a similar vehicle that has a guaranteed return. Understand returns will vary depending on what vehicle is used in that state. It maybe a long term CD or used to purchase government securities. Something with a guaranteed return. During the life of the gun, you sell it, the buyer takes over the face value of the bond ($1,000). So if you sell for $250, they pay $250 but must also spend $1,000 for the "bond". You get your $1,000 back from the government. Anyway, at any point, the gun can be turned into the State for whatever they are willing to give you + the bond's new value (capped at $20 or $30 thousand). So if you hold to maturity and the maturity is $30,000 (unlikely), you get whatever the State paid plus $30K. You can keep $29,000 of that and keep the $1,000 bond and go get yourself another gun if you like. Or you can simply surrender the bond for $30,000.

Keep in mind that, like all State fees, they tend to raise over time. The minimum bond amount at the time of your bond maturing may be $5,000 or more.

So that is how you intelligently raise the price of the gun. Again, the goal is to dry up supply. As price goes up, supply will go down.

On the illegal side, here is what happens. You make crimes involving a gun (doesn't need to be fired) by the assailant a crime punishable by 20-30 years. No time off; no parole. You steal a gun...the same thing applies. So when the cops eventually catch up to Skeeter or Tyrone and get his gun, that is another gun off the street along with an irresponsible gun "owner". They have a new charge for him (fail to maintain financial responsibility) in addition to theft and/or aggravated assault.

Meanwhile, the supply is drying up. Gun owners are keeping their guns longer to cash in on the investment vehicle. Manufacturers are making fewer and we have re-directed the FBI and NSA and US Military toward gun interdiction efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns. We can even get the State department involved to freeze assets of nations exporting guns to the US illegally.

Thus the price is going through the roof and someone looking to buy a cheap weapon is out of luck. So Skeeter is now relegated to using a knife. Meanwhile, the CHL holders--responsible gun owners--are no longer facing a guy with a gun, they are facing skeeter with a butcher knife. Much better odds.

Also, meanwhile, Mr. and Ms. Responsible John Q. Public gun owners are free to purchase weapons, still. No infringing on the 2nd amendment.

 

[2aguy]

Look! You can 'brand' every felon on the fucking forehead "Don't sell me a gun. I'm a convicted felon". It wouldn't make the slightest difference.
How do the subhumans get guns?
They buy them from criminals who bought them from criminals who either stole them or, in most cases, were purchased from gun smugglers from Mexico who bought them by the shipping container from manufacturers from Central Europe. The Mexican drug cartels pay for the guns with heroin etc which is shipped back to Central Europe.

I know it won't stop criminals from getting guns, I am not a gun grabber after all, and I understand truth and reality. What this specifically does is end the discussion of "universal background checks" and puts the focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. There would never be a need to license owners, register guns or force law abiding gun owners to undergo background checks ever again….their un branded shoulder would allow them to go into a gun store pay for a gun and simply walk out…without a background check, and no permanent record of their owning a gun.

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.
Eastern european arms manufacturers are sending container loads of VERY cheap handguns specifically made for the Mexican drug cartels who in turn pay the manufacturers with heroin etc. These cheap hand guns go directly into the inner cities where anyone can get one for the price of a twelve pack of Bud Light.
The handguns are literally not made to have more than one clip fired through it. The gun on the street comes with one loaded clip. That's it. Try to fire a second clip and you're likely to blow your hand off when the gun barrel explodes.
Your fantasy of having anyone without a 'brand' walking into any store and walking out without having to have a background check is ludicrous.

That is why you need to increase the price.

I don't know many people who do not want a mink coat, a Ferrari, a 75' yacht, a personal jetpack, a Gulfstream VII airplane or tickets to the Super Bowl.

Do you know why most people do not have mink coats, Ferraris, a 75' yacht, a jetpack, a Gulfstream VII jet, or tickets to the super bowl?

It isn't because they don't want them.
It isn't because they are not available.

It is because of the price.

You drive the price of guns upward and wow, you'll see them disappear from the street and you'll see them become as ubiquitous as minks and Ferraris.

Intelligently make it to where the costs are too high you'll see drug dealers have to resort to other means of violence.

Mexican drug cartels and E. european arms manufacturers are NEVER going to "drive the price up" on guns or dope. They are quite happy keeping the inner city drug/gun/thug culture just they way it is.

There are steps you can take. For example, you change the priorities of the National police forces. Does the NSA really have to listen to so much chatter? Does the FBI really need to worry about pirated music? I say get the military involved as well. I think it's a matter of national security.

Your surrender posture is silly.

Start another thread. How about why it's a good idea to artificially change the value of the currency system? 'Make hundred dollar bills worth ten cents and one dollar bills worth a thousand dollars and everyone will be millionaires overnight'.

Artificially is your word.

This is the outline of the way it will work. On the legal side:

I described it earlier in this thread. Simply make the stores that sell the guns buy a bond for each weapon. They stock 3,000 guns, they have 3,000 bonds. So stores buy fewer. That dries up supply because manufacturers will not be making so many weapons. Anyway, when they sell the weapon, the buyer buys a bond to go along with it. So a $500 gun now costs, for the sake of argument $1,500. The "bond" is $1,000 and matures in, lets say, 30 years. You can buy as many guns as you can afford but each gun will need it's own "bond". But for the sake of this example, lets stick with a purchase of a single firearm.

The $1,000 is invested in the State's pension plan or a similar vehicle that has a guaranteed return. Understand returns will vary depending on what vehicle is used in that state. It maybe a long term CD or used to purchase government securities. Something with a guaranteed return. During the life of the gun, you sell it, the buyer takes over the face value of the bond ($1,000). So if you sell for $250, they pay $250 but must also spend $1,000 for the "bond". You get your $1,000 back from the government. Anyway, at any point, the gun can be turned into the State for whatever they are willing to give you + the bond's new value (capped at $20 or $30 thousand). So if you hold to maturity and the maturity is $30,000 (unlikely), you get whatever the State paid plus $30K. You can keep $29,000 of that and keep the $1,000 bond and go get yourself another gun if you like. Or you can simply surrender the bond for $30,000.

Keep in mind that, like all State fees, they tend to raise over time. The minimum bond amount at the time of your bond maturing may be $5,000 or more.

So that is how you intelligently raise the price of the gun. Again, the goal is to dry up supply. As price goes up, supply will go down.

On the illegal side, here is what happens. You make crimes involving a gun (doesn't need to be fired) by the assailant a crime punishable by 20-30 years. No time off; no parole. You steal a gun...the same thing applies. So when the cops eventually catch up to Skeeter or Tyrone and get his gun, that is another gun off the street along with an irresponsible gun "owner". They have a new charge for him (fail to maintain financial responsibility) in addition to theft and/or aggravated assault.

Meanwhile, the supply is drying up. Gun owners are keeping their guns longer to cash in on the investment vehicle. Manufacturers are making fewer and we have re-directed the FBI and NSA and US Military toward gun interdiction efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns. We can even get the State department involved to freeze assets of nations exporting guns to the US illegally.

Thus the price is going through the roof and someone looking to buy a cheap weapon is out of luck. So Skeeter is now relegated to using a knife. Meanwhile, the CHL holders--responsible gun owners--are no longer facing a guy with a gun, they are facing skeeter with a butcher knife. Much better odds.

Also, meanwhile, Mr. and Ms. Responsible John Q. Public gun owners are free to purchase weapons, still. No infringing on the 2nd amendment.

Guns are legal, and are protected by the Constitution……there is no reason to dry up the supply. Control criminals, not the law abiding.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...if a gun seller sees a tattoo...that'll stop them:

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.

It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Yeah, when the democrats tried to use poll taxes to deny the right to vote to blacks, that pretty much settled the idea that taxing a right out of existence was constitutional.

The Democratic Party has evolved. Others have not apparently.

Yes…instead of wanting to just own black people as slaves, the modern democrat party wants to control all the people in America, and to do this all the racists in the country have joined the democrat party…the black racists, the hispanic racists and the asian racists have now joined the white racists. Their goal…to increase the government so they can control other people. That is not evolving….that is just evil.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...if a gun seller sees a tattoo...that'll stop them:

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.
It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Taxing a right with the purpose of restricting its exercise infringes upon that right.
Doing so for guns violates the constitution in the same way as it does for abortion, going to church or holding a parade.

And voting…the democrats tried to deny voting rights by taxing them, and putting other burdens on voters. Any burden put on a right is an infringement of that right.

 

[candycorn]

I know it won't stop criminals from getting guns, I am not a gun grabber after all, and I understand truth and reality. What this specifically does is end the discussion of "universal background checks" and puts the focus on the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. There would never be a need to license owners, register guns or force law abiding gun owners to undergo background checks ever again….their un branded shoulder would allow them to go into a gun store pay for a gun and simply walk out…without a background check, and no permanent record of their owning a gun.

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.
Eastern european arms manufacturers are sending container loads of VERY cheap handguns specifically made for the Mexican drug cartels who in turn pay the manufacturers with heroin etc. These cheap hand guns go directly into the inner cities where anyone can get one for the price of a twelve pack of Bud Light.
The handguns are literally not made to have more than one clip fired through it. The gun on the street comes with one loaded clip. That's it. Try to fire a second clip and you're likely to blow your hand off when the gun barrel explodes.
Your fantasy of having anyone without a 'brand' walking into any store and walking out without having to have a background check is ludicrous.

That is why you need to increase the price.

I don't know many people who do not want a mink coat, a Ferrari, a 75' yacht, a personal jetpack, a Gulfstream VII airplane or tickets to the Super Bowl.

Do you know why most people do not have mink coats, Ferraris, a 75' yacht, a jetpack, a Gulfstream VII jet, or tickets to the super bowl?

It isn't because they don't want them.
It isn't because they are not available.

It is because of the price.

You drive the price of guns upward and wow, you'll see them disappear from the street and you'll see them become as ubiquitous as minks and Ferraris.

Intelligently make it to where the costs are too high you'll see drug dealers have to resort to other means of violence.

Mexican drug cartels and E. european arms manufacturers are NEVER going to "drive the price up" on guns or dope. They are quite happy keeping the inner city drug/gun/thug culture just they way it is.

There are steps you can take. For example, you change the priorities of the National police forces. Does the NSA really have to listen to so much chatter? Does the FBI really need to worry about pirated music? I say get the military involved as well. I think it's a matter of national security.

Your surrender posture is silly.

Start another thread. How about why it's a good idea to artificially change the value of the currency system? 'Make hundred dollar bills worth ten cents and one dollar bills worth a thousand dollars and everyone will be millionaires overnight'.

Artificially is your word.

This is the outline of the way it will work. On the legal side:

I described it earlier in this thread. Simply make the stores that sell the guns buy a bond for each weapon. They stock 3,000 guns, they have 3,000 bonds. So stores buy fewer. That dries up supply because manufacturers will not be making so many weapons. Anyway, when they sell the weapon, the buyer buys a bond to go along with it. So a $500 gun now costs, for the sake of argument $1,500. The "bond" is $1,000 and matures in, lets say, 30 years. You can buy as many guns as you can afford but each gun will need it's own "bond". But for the sake of this example, lets stick with a purchase of a single firearm.

The $1,000 is invested in the State's pension plan or a similar vehicle that has a guaranteed return. Understand returns will vary depending on what vehicle is used in that state. It maybe a long term CD or used to purchase government securities. Something with a guaranteed return. During the life of the gun, you sell it, the buyer takes over the face value of the bond ($1,000). So if you sell for $250, they pay $250 but must also spend $1,000 for the "bond". You get your $1,000 back from the government. Anyway, at any point, the gun can be turned into the State for whatever they are willing to give you + the bond's new value (capped at $20 or $30 thousand). So if you hold to maturity and the maturity is $30,000 (unlikely), you get whatever the State paid plus $30K. You can keep $29,000 of that and keep the $1,000 bond and go get yourself another gun if you like. Or you can simply surrender the bond for $30,000.

Keep in mind that, like all State fees, they tend to raise over time. The minimum bond amount at the time of your bond maturing may be $5,000 or more.

So that is how you intelligently raise the price of the gun. Again, the goal is to dry up supply. As price goes up, supply will go down.

On the illegal side, here is what happens. You make crimes involving a gun (doesn't need to be fired) by the assailant a crime punishable by 20-30 years. No time off; no parole. You steal a gun...the same thing applies. So when the cops eventually catch up to Skeeter or Tyrone and get his gun, that is another gun off the street along with an irresponsible gun "owner". They have a new charge for him (fail to maintain financial responsibility) in addition to theft and/or aggravated assault.

Meanwhile, the supply is drying up. Gun owners are keeping their guns longer to cash in on the investment vehicle. Manufacturers are making fewer and we have re-directed the FBI and NSA and US Military toward gun interdiction efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns. We can even get the State department involved to freeze assets of nations exporting guns to the US illegally.

Thus the price is going through the roof and someone looking to buy a cheap weapon is out of luck. So Skeeter is now relegated to using a knife. Meanwhile, the CHL holders--responsible gun owners--are no longer facing a guy with a gun, they are facing skeeter with a butcher knife. Much better odds.

Also, meanwhile, Mr. and Ms. Responsible John Q. Public gun owners are free to purchase weapons, still. No infringing on the 2nd amendment.

Guns are legal, and are protected by the Constitution……there is no reason to dry up the supply. Control criminals, not the law abiding.

Simply relying on market solutions to solve problems. Dyed in the wool GOP dogma at it's finest.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah...if a gun seller sees a tattoo...that'll stop them:

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.

It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Yeah, when the democrats tried to use poll taxes to deny the right to vote to blacks, that pretty much settled the idea that taxing a right out of existence was constitutional.

The Democratic Party has evolved. Others have not apparently.

Yes…instead of wanting to just own black people as slaves, the modern democrat party wants to control all the people in America, and to do this all the racists in the country have joined the democrat party…the black racists, the hispanic racists and the asian racists have now joined the white racists. Their goal…to increase the government so they can control other people. That is not evolving….that is just evil.

Total bullshit. And you know it.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah...if a gun seller sees a tattoo...that'll stop them:

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.
It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Taxing a right with the purpose of restricting its exercise infringes upon that right.
Doing so for guns violates the constitution in the same way as it does for abortion, going to church or holding a parade.

And voting…the democrats tried to deny voting rights by taxing them, and putting other burdens on voters. Any burden put on a right is an infringement of that right.

So Dicks Sporting goods--by charging you more than they paid for a weapon is violating your Constitutional rights? Really?

 

[2aguy]

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.

It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Yeah, when the democrats tried to use poll taxes to deny the right to vote to blacks, that pretty much settled the idea that taxing a right out of existence was constitutional.

The Democratic Party has evolved. Others have not apparently.

Yes…instead of wanting to just own black people as slaves, the modern democrat party wants to control all the people in America, and to do this all the racists in the country have joined the democrat party…the black racists, the hispanic racists and the asian racists have now joined the white racists. Their goal…to increase the government so they can control other people. That is not evolving….that is just evil.

Total bullshit. And you know it.

Nope…absolute truth….

Which party do these known racists and racist groups belong to.....

La Raza...hispanic racists
The nation of islam....black racists
the NAACP, the modern version...black racists (they just kicked out a white woman...remember?)
the congressional black caucus....

George takei...asian racist...
Al sharpton...black racist
jesse jackson...black racist
raul guitierrez...latino racist...
bill clinton...white racist....remember the old segregationists...he gave them medals and presented statues in their honor
robert "kkk" byrd...white racist
barak obama...black racist ( sat in a rabidly racist church for 20 years and was good friends with the racist pastor, the rabid racist pastor, jeremiah wright married the obama's and baptized their children0

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...if a gun seller sees a tattoo...that'll stop them:

Look, nothing will stop a criminal...but this means that "universal background checks" will not be needed...a gun show vendor will not have to wait to sell a gun till the end of the weekend, and a private seller will not have to drag the buyer to a gun store to have a background check done...they can just look at the buyers shoulder and know. It also won't cost the seller any money to do the background check.
It is a win win for anti gun extremists and for 2nd amendment supporters.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
Nothing in the document suggests that they must be easy to get or free.

Taxing a right with the purpose of restricting its exercise infringes upon that right.
Doing so for guns violates the constitution in the same way as it does for abortion, going to church or holding a parade.

And voting…the democrats tried to deny voting rights by taxing them, and putting other burdens on voters. Any burden put on a right is an infringement of that right.

So Dicks Sporting goods--by charging you more than they paid for a weapon is violating your Constitutional rights? Really?

Any federal tax on weapons is a violation of that right….any fees, fines, or requirements that would prevent someone from easily exercising their right is an infringement…that is why you cannot tax ballots, charge a voting fee, or require a literacy test or have a property requirement for voting. The 2nd Amendment is no different.

 

[2aguy]

God you're an idiot!
No 'branded' felon is ever going to try buying a legal gun. So forget that foolishness.
Illegal hand guns are more numerous than Ford trucks.
Eastern european arms manufacturers are sending container loads of VERY cheap handguns specifically made for the Mexican drug cartels who in turn pay the manufacturers with heroin etc. These cheap hand guns go directly into the inner cities where anyone can get one for the price of a twelve pack of Bud Light.
The handguns are literally not made to have more than one clip fired through it. The gun on the street comes with one loaded clip. That's it. Try to fire a second clip and you're likely to blow your hand off when the gun barrel explodes.
Your fantasy of having anyone without a 'brand' walking into any store and walking out without having to have a background check is ludicrous.

That is why you need to increase the price.

I don't know many people who do not want a mink coat, a Ferrari, a 75' yacht, a personal jetpack, a Gulfstream VII airplane or tickets to the Super Bowl.

Do you know why most people do not have mink coats, Ferraris, a 75' yacht, a jetpack, a Gulfstream VII jet, or tickets to the super bowl?

It isn't because they don't want them.
It isn't because they are not available.

It is because of the price.

You drive the price of guns upward and wow, you'll see them disappear from the street and you'll see them become as ubiquitous as minks and Ferraris.

Intelligently make it to where the costs are too high you'll see drug dealers have to resort to other means of violence.

Mexican drug cartels and E. european arms manufacturers are NEVER going to "drive the price up" on guns or dope. They are quite happy keeping the inner city drug/gun/thug culture just they way it is.

There are steps you can take. For example, you change the priorities of the National police forces. Does the NSA really have to listen to so much chatter? Does the FBI really need to worry about pirated music? I say get the military involved as well. I think it's a matter of national security.

Your surrender posture is silly.

Start another thread. How about why it's a good idea to artificially change the value of the currency system? 'Make hundred dollar bills worth ten cents and one dollar bills worth a thousand dollars and everyone will be millionaires overnight'.

Artificially is your word.

This is the outline of the way it will work. On the legal side:

I described it earlier in this thread. Simply make the stores that sell the guns buy a bond for each weapon. They stock 3,000 guns, they have 3,000 bonds. So stores buy fewer. That dries up supply because manufacturers will not be making so many weapons. Anyway, when they sell the weapon, the buyer buys a bond to go along with it. So a $500 gun now costs, for the sake of argument $1,500. The "bond" is $1,000 and matures in, lets say, 30 years. You can buy as many guns as you can afford but each gun will need it's own "bond". But for the sake of this example, lets stick with a purchase of a single firearm.

The $1,000 is invested in the State's pension plan or a similar vehicle that has a guaranteed return. Understand returns will vary depending on what vehicle is used in that state. It maybe a long term CD or used to purchase government securities. Something with a guaranteed return. During the life of the gun, you sell it, the buyer takes over the face value of the bond ($1,000). So if you sell for $250, they pay $250 but must also spend $1,000 for the "bond". You get your $1,000 back from the government. Anyway, at any point, the gun can be turned into the State for whatever they are willing to give you + the bond's new value (capped at $20 or $30 thousand). So if you hold to maturity and the maturity is $30,000 (unlikely), you get whatever the State paid plus $30K. You can keep $29,000 of that and keep the $1,000 bond and go get yourself another gun if you like. Or you can simply surrender the bond for $30,000.

Keep in mind that, like all State fees, they tend to raise over time. The minimum bond amount at the time of your bond maturing may be $5,000 or more.

So that is how you intelligently raise the price of the gun. Again, the goal is to dry up supply. As price goes up, supply will go down.

On the illegal side, here is what happens. You make crimes involving a gun (doesn't need to be fired) by the assailant a crime punishable by 20-30 years. No time off; no parole. You steal a gun...the same thing applies. So when the cops eventually catch up to Skeeter or Tyrone and get his gun, that is another gun off the street along with an irresponsible gun "owner". They have a new charge for him (fail to maintain financial responsibility) in addition to theft and/or aggravated assault.

Meanwhile, the supply is drying up. Gun owners are keeping their guns longer to cash in on the investment vehicle. Manufacturers are making fewer and we have re-directed the FBI and NSA and US Military toward gun interdiction efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns. We can even get the State department involved to freeze assets of nations exporting guns to the US illegally.

Thus the price is going through the roof and someone looking to buy a cheap weapon is out of luck. So Skeeter is now relegated to using a knife. Meanwhile, the CHL holders--responsible gun owners--are no longer facing a guy with a gun, they are facing skeeter with a butcher knife. Much better odds.

Also, meanwhile, Mr. and Ms. Responsible John Q. Public gun owners are free to purchase weapons, still. No infringing on the 2nd amendment.

Guns are legal, and are protected by the Constitution……there is no reason to dry up the supply. Control criminals, not the law abiding.

Simply relying on market solutions to solve problems. Dyed in the wool GOP dogma at it's finest.

Criminals are not a market problem, they are a locking them up problem…I do agree with you on this, gun criminals should go away for 30 years minimum.