Gun Control

[Not Normal]

At least that's an argument that has reason and honesty you can respect, the rest is laughable.

Woof!

Its really a comment on experience more than an argument per se.

 

[phrodeau]

Of course Americans care about Americans. They care about being able to defend themselves against those who would harm them, so that's where weapons come in. Just because other countries make self defense illegal doesn't make it right.

Gun owners are the ones out to harm people. They call it "self-defense", but it's still a matter of shooting other people. No way are you deflecting the bullets coming toward you.

Self-defense is having a shield, not a weapon.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Its really a comment on experience more than an argument per se.

I rather meant your countrymen here....if they used the "we don't give a fuck" argument, at least it would make more sense that the other bullshit they're offering.....it doesn't work in Chicago, REALLY!

Woof!

 

[handysr]

Gun owners are the ones out to harm people. They call it "self-defense", but it's still a matter of shooting other people. No way are you deflecting the bullets coming toward you.

Self-defense is having a shield, not a weapon.

It's amazing you actually seem to believe what you write...

Completely bass-ackwards. As a gun owner, neither my guns or myself have hurt anyone, and I've owned/used them for decades. I don't want to either. If the need arises where I think I have to use one to protect myself or someone else, I'll be glad to have it.

Why don't you believe that people should be able to defend themselves?

 

[Hard_Rom]

1. It was a JOKE! <---- SEE THAT? When that is there it means the post is in jest or tongue in cheek. Bringing misogyny into it is YOUR lame ass thing.

2. America IS "exceptional". Believe it, because we do. And we have the moxy to back it up.

The fact that your pissant leadership has neutered you doesn't mean squat to us.

We have what is called 'responsible government'. Apparently an unknown in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_government
The head of state is in turn required to effectuate his executive power only through these responsible ministers. They must never attempt to set up a "shadow" government of executives or advisors and attempt to use them as instruments of government, or to rely upon their "unofficial" advice. They are bound to take no decision or action, which is put into effect under the color of their executive power, without that action being as a result of the counsel and advisement of their responsible ministers.

And in turn the Ministers are answerable to parliament which is answerable to the people.

You folk are in the process of being neutered. And this 'exceptionalism' doesn't fly outside the US at all. In fact will get you laughed at the world over.

 

[chillywilly2]

We have what is called 'responsible government'. Apparently an unknown in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_government
The head of state is in turn required to effectuate his executive power only through these responsible ministers. They must never attempt to set up a "shadow" government of executives or advisors and attempt to use them as instruments of government, or to rely upon their "unofficial" advice. They are bound to take no decision or action, which is put into effect under the color of their executive power, without that action being as a result of the counsel and advisement of their responsible ministers.

And in turn the Ministers are answerable to parliament which is answerable to the people.

You folk are in the process of being neutered. And this 'exceptionalism' doesn't fly outside the US at all. In fact will get you laughed at the world over.

That certainly doesn't apply in Canada lad

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The ironic part is that all these gun control freaks aren't usually saying what they really want.

What most are implying now is that they would be happy to have rules like in the U.K. or Canada. Strict regulations on who can own them, random unannounced police checks of your security, tedious and expensive licensing, and a tiny amount of allowed guns.

What I've seen just as frequently is that folks want the populace to be totally unarmed. "No guns", they say, but what they really mean is "only police and military can have them". Yeah, like that's not a great way to allow the authorities from getting evil - and quickly.

How about this? The USA prides itself on following the constitution, so let's follow it.

What part of Shall Not Be Infringed is hard for you to understand? No hoops to jump through, no reatrictions, and registrations or licenses. Because The Constitution.

Just to check on that whole "shall not be infringed" part, you'd have no problem with convicted sex offenders legally owning guns, right?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Yep. I said it. Long overdue.


* Register them all
* Outlaw undocumented private sales (gun show loophole)
* Instant background checks
* Felony for resale of a gun that is undocumented, w/ mandatory minimum sentence
* Outlaw internet sales of guns
* Leave the rest up to the States

None of that treads on the 2nd Amendment.

Some clarification for my legion of adoring fans:


* Register them all
The federal Gun Control Act (GCA) requires background checks on anyone who purchases a gun from a dealer. However the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) prevents the creation of a national gun owner registry from those records. Most subject to a background checks will pass, and the records generated by those NICS checks are ultimately destroyed, as required by law (see sec 3)

In fact Hawaii is registering al guns on the islands that it can and is voluntarily reporting back to the FBI “Rap Back” list and people are shitting themselves that this is a bypass of FOPA as it will hopefully spread to other states. And there is nothing in the second amendment or FOPA the prevents this activity. It is a State's Rights to collect and share this information.

So no dopes, there is no central federal registry and I say "REGISTER THEM ALL" by amending FOPA or by all 50 states reporting back to the FBI as per Hawaii's example.

* Outlaw undocumented private sales (gun show loophole)
Private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers under federal law. That is a fact. So you don't like the term "gun show loophole"? Get over it. There should be no more private sales without registering the transaction through the state and that includes inheritances transfers and sells to your dad, brother, mom, daughter, cousin and girlfriend.

Right after Giffords was killed undercover cops were able to buy guns at a gunshow

Columbine guns were from an undocumented sale.




* Instant background checks
Do you know who Dylann Roof is? Well he legally purchased a Glock after an "instant background check" should have disqualified from gun ownership due to a drug charge. He is the fucking asshole white supremacist and neo-Nazi (yeah - a real liberal RightVette) that murdered nine parishioners in a Charleston, South Carolina church.

The system is flawed, is not applied uniformly, does not draw upon state databases (unless in the few states mandate it) and is woefully lacking in mental health checking. In fact this was recently weakened even furthur by Republicans.

We have instant background checks in name only.

* Felony for resale of a gun that is undocumented, w/ mandatory minimum sentence
Collins (r) or Maine and Lahey of VT (D) fiiled "Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act". As Collins states: “Straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result: to put a gun in the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Today, traffickers exploit weaknesses in our laws by targeting individuals who can lawfully purchase guns, which are then used to commit crimes once they are transferred to the criminal who would be unable to pass the background check. Straw purchasing is a growing problem in Maine, where gang members approach addicts to buy guns in exchange for drugs,” said Senator Collins. “Our bill would create new criminal offenses for straw purchasing, which would help law enforcement officials take down these criminal enterprises.”

* Outlaw internet sales of guns

* Leave the rest up to the States

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Some clarification for my legion of adoring fans:


* Register them all
The federal Gun Control Act (GCA) requires background checks on anyone who purchases a gun from a dealer. However the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) prevents the creation of a national gun owner registry from those records. Most subject to a background checks will pass, and the records generated by those NICS checks are ultimately destroyed, as required by law (see sec 3)

In fact Hawaii is registering al guns on the islands that it can and is voluntarily reporting back to the FBI “Rap Back” list and people are shitting themselves that this is a bypass of FOPA as it will hopefully spread to other states. And there is nothing in the second amendment or FOPA the prevents this activity. It is a State's Rights to collect and share this information.

So no dopes, there is no central federal registry and I say "REGISTER THEM ALL" by amending FOPA or by all 50 states reporting back to the FBI as per Hawaii's example.

* Outlaw undocumented private sales (gun show loophole)


* Instant background checks
Do you know who Dylann Roof is? Well he legally purchased a Glock after an "instant background check" should have disqualified from gun ownership due to a drug charge. He is the fucking asshole white supremacist and neo-Nazi (yeah - a real liberal RightVette) that murdered nine parishioners in a Charleston, South Carolina church.

The system is flawed, is not applied uniformly, does not draw upon state databases (unless in the few states mandate it) and is woefully lacking in mental health checking. In fact this was recently weakened even furthur by Republicans.

We have instant background checks in name only.

* Felony for resale of a gun that is undocumented, w/ mandatory minimum sentence
Collins (r) or Maine and Lahey of VT (D) fiiled "Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act". As Collins states: “Straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result: to put a gun in the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Today, traffickers exploit weaknesses in our laws by targeting individuals who can lawfully purchase guns, which are then used to commit crimes once they are transferred to the criminal who would be unable to pass the background check. Straw purchasing is a growing problem in Maine, where gang members approach addicts to buy guns in exchange for drugs,” said Senator Collins. “Our bill would create new criminal offenses for straw purchasing, which would help law enforcement officials take down these criminal enterprises.”

* Outlaw internet sales of guns

* Leave the rest up to the States

How about lost or stolen guns?

Woof!

 

[water505]

Gun owners are the ones out to harm people. They call it "self-defense", but it's still a matter of shooting other people. No way are you deflecting the bullets coming toward you.

Self-defense is having a shield, not a weapon.

You just contradicted yourself, shmuck.

 

[water505]

Some clarification for my legion of adoring fans:


* Register them all
The federal Gun Control Act (GCA) requires background checks on anyone who purchases a gun from a dealer. However the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) prevents the creation of a national gun owner registry from those records. Most subject to a background checks will pass, and the records generated by those NICS checks are ultimately destroyed, as required by law (see sec 3)

In fact Hawaii is registering al guns on the islands that it can and is voluntarily reporting back to the FBI “Rap Back” list and people are shitting themselves that this is a bypass of FOPA as it will hopefully spread to other states. And there is nothing in the second amendment or FOPA the prevents this activity. It is a State's Rights to collect and share this information.

So no dopes, there is no central federal registry and I say "REGISTER THEM ALL" by amending FOPA or by all 50 states reporting back to the FBI as per Hawaii's example.

* Outlaw undocumented private sales (gun show loophole)
Private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers under federal law. That is a fact. So you don't like the term "gun show loophole"? Get over it. There should be no more private sales without registering the transaction through the state and that includes inheritances transfers and sells to your dad, brother, mom, daughter, cousin and girlfriend.

Right after Giffords was killed undercover cops were able to buy guns at a gunshow

Columbine guns were from an undocumented sale.




* Instant background checks
Do you know who Dylann Roof is? Well he legally purchased a Glock after an "instant background check" should have disqualified from gun ownership due to a drug charge. He is the fucking asshole white supremacist and neo-Nazi (yeah - a real liberal RightVette) that murdered nine parishioners in a Charleston, South Carolina church.

The system is flawed, is not applied uniformly, does not draw upon state databases (unless in the few states mandate it) and is woefully lacking in mental health checking. In fact this was recently weakened even furthur by Republicans.

We have instant background checks in name only.

* Felony for resale of a gun that is undocumented, w/ mandatory minimum sentence
Collins (r) or Maine and Lahey of VT (D) fiiled "Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act". As Collins states: “Straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result: to put a gun in the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Today, traffickers exploit weaknesses in our laws by targeting individuals who can lawfully purchase guns, which are then used to commit crimes once they are transferred to the criminal who would be unable to pass the background check. Straw purchasing is a growing problem in Maine, where gang members approach addicts to buy guns in exchange for drugs,” said Senator Collins. “Our bill would create new criminal offenses for straw purchasing, which would help law enforcement officials take down these criminal enterprises.”

* Outlaw internet sales of guns

* Leave the rest up to the States

Which of those would have stopped yesterday's political assassin?

 

[handysr]

Just to check on that whole "shall not be infringed" part, you'd have no problem with convicted sex offenders legally owning guns, right?

Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

So on Johnny's 21st birthday he got drunk at the bar, then was arrested for peeing in the alley. Guess what? Johnny should never own a gun or vote, right? How about drive a car or work as a security guard?

What constitutional rights rights would you remove from a sex offender? Are those different than any other felon? Should murderers have different rights taken than an embezzler? Or an identity thief? Or a prostitute or pimp? That Kardashian ditz wants to make it illegal to own a gun if you're convicted of littering, so where do you draw that line?

By definition, criminals don't obey the law. The gang-bangers killing each other daily don't care if a gun is legal, all they know is they got a stolen 9mm in trade for a baggie of weed. They couldn't care less if it's registered. The laws that infringe on liberties only truly impact the law-abiding citizens.

Kind of a shitty attempt at overplaying the topic.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Is peeing in an alley a felony or misdemeanor? Should convicted sex offenders be allowed to work with children? Should embezzlers be allowed to work in finance? Should traitorous whistle blowers be given top secret security clearances? Should doctors convicted of malpractice be allowed to operate? So why shouldn't felons be denied use of a gun?

Get rid of all the handguns and military style weaponry and it is much easier for cops to identify real criminals. And real criminals suddenly have far fewer opportunities to obtain a gun.

I'm still of the opinion that a shotgun is the superior home defence weapon. You can also use it peacefully and legitimately to hunt and shoot skeet.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

So on Johnny's 21st birthday he got drunk at the bar, then was arrested for peeing in the alley. Guess what? Johnny should never own a gun or vote, right? How about drive a car or work as a security guard?

What constitutional rights rights would you remove from a sex offender? Are those different than any other felon? Should murderers have different rights taken than an embezzler? Or an identity thief? Or a prostitute or pimp? That Kardashian ditz wants to make it illegal to own a gun if you're convicted of littering, so where do you draw that line?

By definition, criminals don't obey the law. The gang-bangers killing each other daily don't care if a gun is legal, all they know is they got a stolen 9mm in trade for a baggie of weed. They couldn't care less if it's registered. The laws that infringe on liberties only truly impact the law-abiding citizens.

Kind of a shitty attempt at overplaying the topic.

This isn't about where I draw the line. A convicted sex offender can't own a gun, do you think that is infringing?

 

[handysr]

Is peeing in an alley a felony or misdemeanor? Should convicted sex offenders be allowed to work with children? Should embezzlers be allowed to work in finance? Should traitorous whistle blowers be given top secret security clearances? Should doctors convicted of malpractice be allowed to operate? So why shouldn't felons be denied use of a gun?

Get rid of all the handguns and military style weaponry and it is much easier for cops to identify real criminals. And real criminals suddenly have far fewer opportunities to obtain a gun.

I'm still of the opinion that a shotgun is the superior home defence weapon. You can also use it peacefully and legitimately to hunt and shoot skeet.

The question asked was about 'sex offenders' without a reference to the level.

Should someone convicted of a crime work in a related field afterwards? Maybe, depends on the person and if there are laws to prevent it. I'm not talking about taking away rights of embezzlers to work in finance, I'm talking about constitutional rights. What about non-legally binding judgements? If a college says a student plagiarized a paper, should media companies be not allowed to hire them as journalists? Kind of a slippery slope, ain't it?

Then you take a broad brush of "felons of any kind" regarding the ownership of a gun. The relationships you provide don't match up. A felon can still drive a car, which can be used in many ways to kill people, and unlike a gun, nobody thinks twice about seeing somebody driving.

I agree that the shotgun is probably the most versatile firearm available. Not everyone would agree, and not everyone will think it's best for home defense. The constitution doesn't distinguish between "best clay target gun", it references "arms".

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific. The letter of the law has simply been abused over the years, just like the First Amendment has.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Alcohol was prohibited by an amendment. And made legal by repealing said amendment. No reason the 2nd can't be as well. Or have the first tweaked.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The question asked was about 'sex offenders' without a reference to the level.

Should someone convicted of a crime work in a related field afterwards? Maybe, depends on the person and if there are laws to prevent it. I'm not talking about taking away rights of embezzlers to work in finance, I'm talking about constitutional rights. What about non-legally binding judgements? If a college says a student plagiarized a paper, should media companies be not allowed to hire them as journalists? Kind of a slippery slope, ain't it?

Then you take a broad brush of "felons of any kind" regarding the ownership of a gun. The relationships you provide don't match up. A felon can still drive a car, which can be used in many ways to kill people, and unlike a gun, nobody thinks twice about seeing somebody driving.

I agree that the shotgun is probably the most versatile firearm available. Not everyone would agree, and not everyone will think it's best for home defense. The constitution doesn't distinguish between "best clay target gun", it references "arms".

Shall not be infringed is pretty specific. The letter of the law has simply been abused over the years, just like the First Amendment has.

I'll take your last paragraph with the bolded portion to mean that you believe anyone convicted of a felony should legally allowed to own a gun. If I'm mistaken please correct me.

 

[Disgustipated]

All you need to know about fun control: https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0

Ya fucking cunts.

 

[handysr]

I'll take your last paragraph with the bolded portion to mean that you believe anyone convicted of a felony should legally allowed to own a gun. If I'm mistaken please correct me.

That would be correct. And the right to vote. And the right to free speech, and to practice the religion of their choice. According to "the law", when a person convicted of a crime has completed the sentencing given them by the judge, aren't they believed to have "paid their debt to society", or is that an antiquated idea as well?

As it is now, with certain rights, a felon is only counted as a partial American. They did the crime and did the time, so why not treat them as such?

The liberals in Some states were all happy about making it illegal to do a criminal history search on job applicants, because they said that felons were being discriminated against, and it isn't fair. Well then? Keep it going, liberals. Felons are Americans too, and they should have the rights of every other American.

Illegal immigrants are pressuring the govt for voting rights, as well as other constitutional protections, so what makes existing Americans worse than them?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The hearing to deregulate silencers was cancelled due to the shooting in Alexandria yesterday.

Yes, the NRA wants to protect your hearing. (sic) It is literally called the "Hearing Protection Act".

As I understand it silencers also reduce firearm recoil by making it easier for increased accuracy while target shooting. The American Suppressor Association says silencers help contain the explosion of gunpowder at the muzzle of a firearm by reducing recoil and helping decrease muzzle flinch—leading to improved accuracy and precise shot placements.

Just imagine if Hodgkinson had decided to legally "protect his hearing" before opening fire with his legally acquired SKS 7.62.

How ironic. Let's hope that hearing stays cancelled.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I like guns in a way. The techy bit, the history associated with them, the skill at skeet and target shooting. Even hunting, although I use a bow. You can kill moose with a bow! Hard to kill ducks with them though. But a simple shotgun will get you fowl. Wild fowl are shyte eating. Nothing on the fuckers.

Part 2 of the Jim Jeffries vid is not to be missed.

 

[handysr]

Alcohol was prohibited by an amendment. And made legal by repealing said amendment. No reason the 2nd can't be as well. Or have the first tweaked.

Even the politicians who admit that is their end-game are smart enough to know that will never happen. It's political suicide to back that kind of BS.

I really don't give a damn if you hate the fact that I legally own guns. Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[handysr]

The hearing to deregulate silencers was cancelled due to the shooting in Alexandria yesterday.

Yes, the NRA wants to protect your hearing. (sic) It is literally called the "Hearing Protection Act".

As I understand it silencers also reduce firearm recoil by making it easier for increased accuracy while target shooting. The American Suppressor Association says silencers help contain the explosion of gunpowder at the muzzle of a firearm by reducing recoil and helping decrease muzzle flinch—leading to improved accuracy and precise shot placements.

Just imagine if Hodgkinson had decided to legally "protect his hearing" before opening fire with his legally acquired SKS 7.62.

How ironic. Let's hope that hearing stays cancelled.

You are opposed to protecting people's health? You want the people who live near shooting ranges to be bothered all day? The numbers of criminals using them is minuscule, it's just fear tactics used by liberals who hate freedom.

You've obviously never used one. Try one, you may be surprised.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I like guns in a way. The techy bit, the history associated with them, the skill at skeet and target shooting. Even hunting, although I use a bow. You can kill moose with a bow! Hard to kill ducks with them though. But a simple shotgun will get you fowl. Wild fowl are shyte eating. Nothing on the fuckers.

Part 2 of the Jim Jeffries vid is not to be missed.

Nothing wrong with guns. They are pretty cool for sport (sport shooting not sport hunting Cecil), should be available for any real hunter that eats their kill or home or personal defense. No question at all about it.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You are opposed to protecting people's health? You want the people who live near shooting ranges to be bothered all day? The numbers of criminals using them is minuscule, it's just fear tactics used by liberals who hate freedom.

You've obviously never used one. Try one, you may be surprised.

I have, many times. Shotgun "golf" is a joy of life. Shooting slugs at water jugs from a 12 gauge is blast.

I wear earplugs.