Jump to content

Recommended Posts

as I said before, it should be harder to get a gun....much harder.

If I had my way there would be 2 year waiting periods to be able to buy a gun.

 

doing nothing is not the answer...too many little kids being slaughtered

I agree something should be done to prevent these mass shootings. But guns are not the cause of the problem. These guns that are being used have been in public hands en masse for nearly 50 years. Yet we only recently start seeing a serious increase in mass shootings. This tells me, looking at it from an unbiased as I can get point, that it is not the gun or availability of the gun that is the cause. It is also important to note that it is fairly recent that felons and mentally unstable people were restricted from owning firearms (FOPA 1986). I don't know what the cause is exactly, maybe it is the heavy use of anti-depressants nowadays, maybe it is the culture, maybe it is video games and tv (very unlikely in my opinion), maybe it is something in the water. I honestly don't know what the cause is. But I can tell you what the cause is NOT, and that is guns.

 

As I said before, I support gun buyback programs, that is fine. If people want to sell their guns, than let them. The only thing I think is foolish is when the groups that host these programs destroy the guns afterwards. These could be put back on the market, selling them with background checks and using the proffits accrued to fund more buyback programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to go there and strut your ignornace go for it kid. Mauser sued Springfield over the model 1903, and won. Glock sued Smith&Wesson over the Sigma, and wins. Just because you don't hear about it does not mean it didn't happen. You should really try to atleast half way educate your self before you type about things of which you know nothing. Also, Colt 45? Are we talking about a revolver? 1911? what? .38 special is also only a caliber, not a gun. Good try though.

 

So you propose that specific enough is that it is a glock 17, so then we just arrest everyone that owns a glock 17?

 

p.s. The scenario you just described would never work. Seeing as ranges rarely clean their traps and traps are designed to destroy bullets. But you know, keep speaking with ignorance, someone may believe you eventually.

 

you can argue with me about how guns and stuff work all you want kid, I do this for a living. What is your qualification?

Thanks for the examples of law suits over distinctive features and that "recent recordings of its striations" could identify a gun without actually having the gun. Looks like you are working for me now!!!

 

I suppose you won't admit that not all firing ranges have the traps you described. :)

 

BTW... I didn't realize that you were paid to BS for a living. Sorry to say I'm not paying you for the valuable info you gave me that proved yourself wrong. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the examples of law suits over distinctive features and that "recent recordings of its striations" could identify a gun without actually having the gun. Looks like you are working for me now!!!

 

I suppose you won't admit that not all firing ranges have the traps you described. :)

 

BTW... I didn't realize that you were paid to BS for a living. Sorry to say I'm not paying you for the valuable info you gave me that proved yourself wrong. :D

I am glad you still think that you have ever made a valid argument about anything in this entire thread. I work with guns for a living, but yeah you are right. I suppose someone who doesn't even know about pretty well known lawsuits definitely has enough knowledge of the the subject to talk about terminal ballistics. Tell me more about how you are know what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree something should be done to prevent these mass shootings. But guns are not the cause of the problem. These guns that are being used have been in public hands en masse for nearly 50 years. Yet we only recently start seeing a serious increase in mass shootings. This tells me, looking at it from an unbiased as I can get point, that it is not the gun or availability of the gun that is the cause. It is also important to note that it is fairly recent that felons and mentally unstable people were restricted from owning firearms (FOPA 1986). I don't know what the cause is exactly, maybe it is the heavy use of anti-depressants nowadays, maybe it is the culture, maybe it is video games and tv (very unlikely in my opinion), maybe it is something in the water. I honestly don't know what the cause is. But I can tell you what the cause is NOT, and that is guns.

 

As I said before, I support gun buyback programs, that is fine. If people want to sell their guns, than let them. The only thing I think is foolish is when the groups that host these programs destroy the guns afterwards. These could be put back on the market, selling them with background checks and using the proffits accrued to fund more buyback programs.

 

a buyback program would have about as much impact as a fart in a tornado...even if the guns bought were destroyed there are already what 2 or 3 hundred million of them in this country already...but i would support it because at least its something.

 

now answer me this

you stated that you work with guns...in your experience have you ever met one or more people in those circles who just seemed extra paranoid?...someone that just didn't seem right?...these people have the same rights to a gun as you or I do.

 

I don't work with guns on a daily basis but I would disarm at least a dozen people right now if given the opportunity....people I have met from my rare hunting or skeet shooting trips.

 

and this was years ago...people are extra crazy these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a buyback program would have about as much impact as a fart in a tornado...even if the guns bought were destroyed there are already what 2 or 3 hundred million of them in this country already...but i would support it because at least its something.

 

now answer me this

you stated that you work with guns...in your experience have you ever met one or more people in those circles who just seemed extra paranoid?...someone that just didn't seem right?...these people have the same rights to a gun as you or I do.

 

I don't work with guns on a daily basis but I would disarm at least a dozen people right now if given the opportunity....people I have met from my rare hunting or skeet shooting trips.

 

and this was years ago...people are extra crazy these days

I have denied the purchase of more than one firearm because the people seemed unstable or off kilter in some way. It is part of the job, these people who don't do everything in their power to make sure a straw purchase is not occuring or to make sure they are not selling a gun to a crazy are not doing their jobs the way they are supposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you still think that you have ever made a valid argument about anything in this entire thread. I work with guns for a living, but yeah you are right. I suppose someone who doesn't even know about pretty well known lawsuits definitely has enough knowledge of the the subject to talk about terminal ballistics. Tell me more about how you are know what you are talking about.

 

 

Why should I bother telling you anything about me, I keep proving you wrong and/or putting your BS in serious doubt. Let's say, for argument sake, that I have no qualifications whatsoever... Here I am at square one, dummy me, in imaginary land, walking all over your BS... Feel better to be slammed by a neophyte?

 

Okay, I'll take some of that back and give you credit for your expertise with, "the examples of law suits over distinctive features" and the acknowledgement that "recent recordings of its striations" could identify a gun without actually having the gun, that proved you know my arguments are valid. :wub:

 

You are s-o-o-o-o easy!!!

 

Now you want to take this further off road with terminal ballistics? What happened to good old staying on topic Cory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have denied the purchase of more than one firearm because the people seemed unstable or off kilter in some way. It is part of the job, these people who don't do everything in their power to make sure a straw purchase is not occuring or to make sure they are not selling a gun to a crazy are not doing their jobs the way they are supposed to.

so I take it you sell guns..ok

 

those people that you denied for whatever reason...do you think the Muppet working at the walmart would be doing as good a job...or some dirtbag running one of the thousands of pawn shops?

 

guns are too easy to buy...period

guns do kill people...period

 

people can deny all they want to, but those kids in that school were kill with firepower...not willpower

 

 

 

 

Why should I bother telling you anything about me, I keep proving you wrong and/or putting your BS in serious doubt. Let's say, for argument sake, that I have no qualifications whatsoever... Here I am at square one, dummy me, in imaginary land, walking all over your BS... Feel better to be slammed by a neophyte?

 

Okay, I'll take some of that back and give you credit for your expertise with, "the examples of law suits over distinctive features" and the acknowledgement that "recent recordings of its striations" could identify a gun without actually having the gun, that proved you know my arguments are valid. :wub:

 

You are s-o-o-o-o easy!!!

 

Now you want to take this further off road with terminal ballistics? What happened to good old staying on topic Cory?

 

 

borderline

debate the topic not the person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so I take it you sell guns..ok

 

those people that you denied for whatever reason...do you think the Muppet working at the walmart would be doing as good a job...or some dirtbag running one of the thousands of pawn shops?

 

guns are too easy to buy...period

guns do kill people...period

 

people can deny all they want to, but those kids in that school were kill with firepower...not willpower

The guns did not walk in the school all by its self and kill those children. Someone had to manipulate them to achieve those results, they had to aim it, they had to load it, they had to carry it, they had to pull the trigger. The gun did only what it is designed to do, strike a primer to ignite gunpowder and launch a projectile out of the end of it. The same thing guns have always been designed to do. It takes a person to make the gun do that, and it takes a person to use a gun for evil.

 

Like I said though, if a person does not do everything they can to prevent selling a gun to a straw purchase or prevent selling a gun to a crazy person than they are not doing their job as described. That is also not the guns fault, that is a persons fault. Just like doctors who unnecesarily prescribe painkillers to people and then get them addicted. It is not the drugs fault, it is the doctors fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

borderline

debate the topic not the person

I am actually doing both. Because the "person" rejects my valid arguments I am trying to fix that problem through debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually doing both. Because the "person" rejects my valid arguments I am trying to fix that problem through debate.

like I said...borderline

just keep it clean guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like I said...borderline

just keep it clean guys

Thanx for the warning, as you see I took it seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is a bit too late to pop in here. But, I feel like if instead of having a bunch of gun laws that didn't work we just replaced them with good ones. Universal background checks aren't too bad. Problem being though somebody with a clean slate can buy a gun after the check and just give it to who wanted it. People should be held accountable for their guns. They should report when their guns are missing or stolen. And when the gun is trace to them but they are not the culprit they should still face punishment. And I know there is the saying that guns don't kill people but people do. True. But it be a whole lot harder to kill multiple people without a gun than with it. And some of these people saying universal background checks are unconstitutional are just idiots or have a bad background. Those are the only two possible answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is a bit too late to pop in here. But, I feel like if instead of having a bunch of gun laws that didn't work we just replaced them with good ones. Universal background checks aren't too bad. Problem being though somebody with a clean slate can buy a gun after the check and just give it to who wanted it. People should be held accountable for their guns. They should report when their guns are missing or stolen. And when the gun is trace to them but they are not the culprit they should still face punishment. And I know there is the saying that guns don't kill people but people do. True. But it be a whole lot harder to kill multiple people without a gun than with it. And some of these people saying universal background checks are unconstitutional are just idiots or have a bad background. Those are the only two possible answers.

I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have a problem with your take. The problem comes from balancing laws that preserve the Constitutional use of the Second Amendment and the rights of people to not have to endure un-Constitutional or unlawful use of arms.

 

From the Militia Act of 1792:

 

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service..."

 

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

 

I'd say, from the spirit of the above and since it is the government that is intended to have the control of arms and related requirements for a militia member, the qualifying and quantifying particulars of arms falls well within the government's purview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...when called out to exercise or into service..."

 

Important to note...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Important to note...

I luv my bee :wub:

 

 

May 8, 1792

 

Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.[1]

 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15.That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

 

 

 

that kind of shoots the "founding father set it up this way" argument right in the proverbial foot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree something should be done to prevent these mass shootings. But guns are not the cause of the problem. These guns that are being used have been in public hands en masse for nearly 50 years. Yet we only recently start seeing a serious increase in mass shootings. This tells me, looking at it from an unbiased as I can get point, that it is not the gun or availability of the gun that is the cause. It is also important to note that it is fairly recent that felons and mentally unstable people were restricted from owning firearms (FOPA 1986). I don't know what the cause is exactly, maybe it is the heavy use of anti-depressants nowadays, maybe it is the culture, maybe it is video games and tv (very unlikely in my opinion), maybe it is something in the water. I honestly don't know what the cause is. But I can tell you what the cause is NOT, and that is guns.

 

As I said before, I support gun buyback programs, that is fine. If people want to sell their guns, than let them. The only thing I think is foolish is when the groups that host these programs destroy the guns afterwards. These could be put back on the market, selling them with background checks and using the proffits accrued to fund more buyback programs.

 

I have three questions that I wish opponents of gun control would answer .

 

1. Are liberties subject to some regulation ?

 

2. Do we not have to balance different or competing claims to ensure the liberty of all individuals - gun owners and those concerned about safety from gun violence ?

 

3. Is it not true that every country that disarmed its citizens was either undemocratic or lacked constitutional protection of the individual right to bear arms ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I luv my bee :wub:

 

 

May 8, 1792

 

 

Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.[1]

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15.That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

 

that kind of shoots the "founding father set it up this way" argument right in the proverbial foot

 

Not that I agree with much of what is going around, but what can and what should be done are also guided by this...

 

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:

 

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is a bit too late to pop in here. But, I feel like if instead of having a bunch of gun laws that didn't work we just replaced them with good ones. Universal background checks aren't too bad. Problem being though somebody with a clean slate can buy a gun after the check and just give it to who wanted it. People should be held accountable for their guns. They should report when their guns are missing or stolen. And when the gun is trace to them but they are not the culprit they should still face punishment. And I know there is the saying that guns don't kill people but people do. True. But it be a whole lot harder to kill multiple people without a gun than with it. And some of these people saying universal background checks are unconstitutional are just idiots or have a bad background. Those are the only two possible answers.

 

You are solidly in my school of thought. Purchasing a firearm for someone who is not qualified to possess one should be a serious felony. Having a gun stolen from you is one thing, but failing to secure one from kids, or unstable relatives should result in far stiffer penalties than they do. Right wingers secretly LOVE gun bans. Think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have three questions that I wish opponents of gun control would answer .

 

1. Are liberties subject to some regulation ?

 

2. Do we not have to balance different or competing claims to ensure the liberty of all individuals - gun owners and those concerned about safety from gun violence ?

 

3. Is it not true that every country that disarmed its citizens was either undemocratic or lacked constitutional protection of the individual right to bear arms ?

1. Not ideally, no. But considering the ownership of firearms is already heavily "regulated" in this country as it is, I don't see more making a difference. We banned "assault weapons" before, anti-gunners like to forget about that. You know how much of an impact it made on crime, according to the DOJ? None. I believe this also speaks to question 2.

 

2. Sure, some regulations, NOT restrictions, are acceptable. It is when registrations get closed on a type of gun that has only been used in 1 crime since 1934 that I start getting pissed. It is when the ATF starts manufacturing evidence to support more gun RESTRICTIONS that I get pissed. It is when people start BEGGING to give up their own rights that I get pissed. All of this without a shred of evidence that it would help, and mountains of evidence to the contrary. It is when the federal government holds out two hands, one offering a restriction on our rights while the other holds laws allowing them to kill us without question or trial that I get pissed. I can tolerate hoops needing to be jumped through to own fully automatic firearms, or explosives, or anti-tank weapons, etc. But when that goes from hoops to virtually impossible, it becomes a problem. It is when the government starts buying billions of rounds of ammunition for an agency that can ONLY operate on US soil, while trying to demonize citizens for owning "too much" ammo that I get pissed. I don't think you realize just how restricted your rights to own a gun already are. Finally, if you are concerned about gun violence, buy a gun, carry it, pressure your legislators to pass laws allowing you to carry it. It is demonstrable that the more people who own and carry firearms, the more gun crimes drop in those areas. This is also an excellent reason to keep the federal government out of local issues. Even the feds admit that what works in one place won't work in another, yet they continue their efforts to pass nationwide, sweeping, gun laws. Why? This is the real question you should be asking your self, "why?". Why is the government so adamant to pass laws they KNOW don't work? Why are they so adamant to take guns from people? To sell them to other countries? To kill Americans? To kick in doors? To infringe on every right we have? There are motivations for all of these things.

 

3. No and yes. Hitler was elected democratically(sort of), England is a democracy, as is Australia. Whether they had constitutional rights or not I can not say. The US constitution is the longest standing constitution still in existence. It also does not grant rights, or give them. It acknowledges them, inalienable. We have these rights simply by breathing in America. It is not a privilege the government lets us have, it is something we have in spite of the government.

 

 

You are solidly in my school of thought. Purchasing a firearm for someone who is not qualified to possess one should be a serious felony. Having a gun stolen from you is one thing, but failing to secure one from kids, or unstable relatives should result in far stiffer penalties than they do. Right wingers secretly LOVE gun bans. Think about it.

It is already illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is called a straw purchase. You suggest we pass the same law again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is already illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is called a straw purchase. You suggest we pass the same law again?

 

No.

I suggest that we should stiffen such laws in order to make them more effective.

This is from the crime report.

 

The truth is that the nation does have statutes outlawing gun trafficking, as well as laws that can be used to prosecute so-called straw purchasers, i.e., eligible gun buyers who obtain a firearm for someone who is ineligible to buy one. Many law enforcement officials and a growing number of legislators from both parties insist that existing laws are too frail and that a specific statute against straw purchasing is needed to give federal agents more legal firepower to crack down on gun trafficking. Virtually all weapons recovered at crime scenes are purchased from licensed firearms dealers, says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Of firearms used in crime, 20 percent go from a licensed dealer to a crime scene in two years or less, says Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

 

For the record I am a supporter of the second amendment as well as a gun owner. I do not support gun bans. I do support some common sense measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 300 million firearms in private hands in this country. In most states these weapons can be sold without background checks and zero oversight on who is buying the firearms and if they should have them. I was happy to see and contribute to an organization that sponsors gun buy back programs and wanted to share this with everybody. www.gunsoffthestreets.com

 

 

Hmm, well I think we should have a national clean you gun day. Maybe have target shooting, gun swaps, and gun safety courses. It would help if the city's had large parks that also had shooting ranges included with them, so you could go and pic nik and attend gun events with your neighbors. Lord knows we spend enough on skate board parks and bicycle paths, why not for guns?

 

It is already illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is called a straw purchase. You suggest we pass the same law again?

 

No.

I suggest that we should stiffen such laws in order to make them more effective.

This is from the crime report.

 

The truth is that the nation does have statutes outlawing gun trafficking, as well as laws that can be used to prosecute so-called straw purchasers, i.e., eligible gun buyers who obtain a firearm for someone who is ineligible to buy one. Many law enforcement officials and a growing number of legislators from both parties insist that existing laws are too frail and that a specific statute against straw purchasing is needed to give federal agents more legal firepower to crack down on gun trafficking. Virtually all weapons recovered at crime scenes are purchased from licensed firearms dealers, says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Of firearms used in crime, 20 percent go from a licensed dealer to a crime scene in two years or less, says Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

 

For the record I am a supporter of the second amendment as well as a gun owner. I do not support gun bans. I do support some common sense measures.

 

Yeah, I don't think you are really supporting the 2nd, because it is clear, shall not be infringed. If you need a common sense measure for yourself, you should be able to freely practice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so I take it you sell guns..ok

 

those people that you denied for whatever reason...do you think the Muppet working at the walmart would be doing as good a job...or some dirtbag running one of the thousands of pawn shops?

 

guns are too easy to buy...period

Geeze, cars are easy to buy, so are hammers and knifes. I am not sure what your point is. The 2nd says shall not infringe, not make it hard to buy a gun. The founders were perfectly happy knowing that eveybody could own guns, insane people, criminals, etc. Now if you have a problem with those people having guns, then they shouldn't be roaming free in our society, but locked away somewhere. Instead of limiting my right to gun freedom, limit your real problem. These people shouldn't have cars, guns, knifes, or hammers, but should be isolated from a free society that has those objects.

guns do kill people...period

Well yes, they do, but not just period, there a few other uses as well. Lock people up that kill people, and leave guns alone in a free society for people who do not kill people.

 

people can deny all they want to, but those kids in that school were kill with firepower...not willpower

Well yes, he used a couple of hand guns & killed people. He should have already have been locked away from a free society of gun owners.

 

 

 

 

borderline

debate the topic not the person

Hope that helps focus the discussion.

Edited by shintao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is already illegal to buy a gun for someone else. It is called a straw purchase. You suggest we pass the same law again?

 

No.

I suggest that we should stiffen such laws in order to make them more effective.

This is from the crime report.

 

The truth is that the nation does have statutes outlawing gun trafficking, as well as laws that can be used to prosecute so-called straw purchasers, i.e., eligible gun buyers who obtain a firearm for someone who is ineligible to buy one. Many law enforcement officials and a growing number of legislators from both parties insist that existing laws are too frail and that a specific statute against straw purchasing is needed to give federal agents more legal firepower to crack down on gun trafficking. Virtually all weapons recovered at crime scenes are purchased from licensed firearms dealers, says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Of firearms used in crime, 20 percent go from a licensed dealer to a crime scene in two years or less, says Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

 

For the record I am a supporter of the second amendment as well as a gun owner. I do not support gun bans. I do support some common sense measures.

Okay, I'm with you on some of that, but in reality I do not see where the Constitution ties the hands of our government up to and including bans. The claim that the rights discussed in the Constitution are "inalienable" comes from the use of "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence and an apparent confusion by those who erroneously think the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are somehow one document.

 

The preamble states the Constitution's purpose...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

A power of Congress...

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the

Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

The Constitutional purpose to "establish Justice" and "insure domestic Tranquility" cannot be ruled out in this debate as it is part of the whole.

 

Since the banning by our government of certain words has already been deemed Constitutional in relation to the First Amendment, I cannot see how the banning certain weapons is somehow not also Constitutional.

 

For the record, my position from another thread...

"Personally, my take on the current, hot, gun-law making frenzy is that it is overboard. Truth is I have not seen why the AR15 is the weapon of choice in many of the big time shootings, but it is, and it has that stigma. At this point in time, I'm fine with AR15s and large capacity clips. What I would like to see is extended waiting periods, more thorough background checks, a registration of all existing and future built guns and possible fines/jail time for legal owners that are lax with their guns/fire arms where they get into the hands of people that should not have them. I think that last one is key. Irresponsible but legal gun owners are obviously a big thorn in the side of responsible and legal gun owners and I would think you would also want to clean up that mess along with the problem crazies and hot-heads cause."

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen that argument before, and my argument to it is the same. Where is my free m4?



Also, before anyone starts with the "the national guard is the militia" bs. According to current US law, I am part of the militia, as is any other male between the ages of 18 and 35. Where is my m4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...