The killer did not use an AR-15...he used a Sig....

[westwall]

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

i counter your first argument with this. Did making drugs illegal increase or decrease drug use in this country?

Well, based on the marked increase in marijuana use in both Washington, and Colorado, since it was legalized, I would say, yes. Yes it did decrease drug use.

Has nothing to do with the number of people moving to the legal state now does it. Furthermore the record keepers haven't been tracking the usage by people who obtain their marijuana from other sources so no one really knows.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

No, we don't, because guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are. You bring third world people here to the US and are shocked when they continue to live by their third world culture which is overwhelmingly more violent than our own. I have actually lived and worked in the Third World. It sucks. They don't value life. They don't value anything except their immediate needs and how to meet them which usually means taking them from someone else through violent methods.

You want to disarm the law abiding who outnumber the criminals by many orders of magnitude, and you want to bring even MORE third world savages into the country with no attempt to control those who come here.

Face it dude, you're either incredibly stupid, or insane.

They don't seem to get that.

People who don't value human life will find ways to take human life. Those who do value human life will not kill people, even if they have the tools in front of them to do so.

Forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a moment, there is no reason to believe that crime would drop if guns were illegal.

Chicago is ABSOLUTE proof of this. Guns are illegal in Chicago, Has that correlated to less gun violence? Of course not because criminals don't obey laws, that's why they are fucking called criminals.

However, certain tools make the taking of human lives in large numbers much easier. And we should regulate who gets those tools. I have had my .250 Savage for over 50 years. I am quite proficient with it. However, five shots and I am out of ammo, have to revoad from the top. Very efficient gun for deer and elk. Not so much for a crowded night club. More than adaquete for self defense, don't recollect anyone having to take on an army around here recently. And even with a belt fed BAR, you will lose if you are taking on an army.

 

[westwall]

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

No, we don't, because guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are. You bring third world people here to the US and are shocked when they continue to live by their third world culture which is overwhelmingly more violent than our own. I have actually lived and worked in the Third World. It sucks. They don't value life. They don't value anything except their immediate needs and how to meet them which usually means taking them from someone else through violent methods.

You want to disarm the law abiding who outnumber the criminals by many orders of magnitude, and you want to bring even MORE third world savages into the country with no attempt to control those who come here.

Face it dude, you're either incredibly stupid, or insane.

They don't seem to get that.

People who don't value human life will find ways to take human life. Those who do value human life will not kill people, even if they have the tools in front of them to do so.

Forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a moment, there is no reason to believe that crime would drop if guns were illegal.

Chicago is ABSOLUTE proof of this. Guns are illegal in Chicago, Has that correlated to less gun violence? Of course not because criminals don't obey laws, that's why they are fucking called criminals.

However, certain tools make the taking of human lives in large numbers much easier. And we should regulate who gets those tools. I have had my .250 Savage for over 50 years. I am quite proficient with it. However, five shots and I am out of ammo, have to revoad from the top. Very efficient gun for deer and elk. Not so much for a crowded night club. More than adaquete for self defense, don't recollect anyone having to take on an army around here recently. And even with a belt fed BAR, you will lose if you are taking on an army.

Doesn't matter. The worst mass killing at a nightclub in US history was the asshole in New York who burned 70 some odd people to death with a gallon of gasoline. Evil people do evil things and they will always find a way to do it. Far better to keep the third world savages OUT of this country don't you think? hat we can do. That actually works. Why is it you insist on bringing predators to this country to rape and murder our peaceful people? I am curious as to why you think that that is OK.

 

[Czernobog]

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

i counter your first argument with this. Did making drugs illegal increase or decrease drug use in this country?

Well, based on the marked increase in marijuana use in both Washington, and Colorado, since it was legalized, I would say, yes. Yes it did decrease drug use.

Has nothing to do with the number of people moving to the legal state now does it. Furthermore the record keepers haven't been tracking the usage by people who obtain their marijuana from other sources so no one really knows.

Then it would submit id it is that difficult to track, then the question itself was one without a reliable answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Old Rocks]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

Can and do. A special license is required to own a .45 Thompson. The same license should be required to own any semi-auto that can take a high capacity magazine.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

And a cop just takes your drivers license and runs your name...that is

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

At a traffic stop the cop just takes your drivers license and runs your name through the system...no reason we can't just make NICS based on drivers licenses...right? Then you aren't flagging anyone as a gun owner.

I can see your point .....but it would have to count for all background checks to keep it from just being for guns....to easy to target gun owners otherwise.

Of course it would , that's the point. The system wouldn't say "he owns a gun" it would simply say "is qualified to own a gun" it would be no different than your drivers license currently saying "organ donor" except that it would be recorded digitally instead of actually be printed on the DL

This could even go one step further and the back ground check , which I believe should be VERY thorough, could also qualify one for fast tracking through TSA security. If you've been interviewed by the FBI and cleared to own an AR15, then you are surely not a danger to an airplane , else the entire background check system is failed anyway.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

No, we don't, because guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are. You bring third world people here to the US and are shocked when they continue to live by their third world culture which is overwhelmingly more violent than our own. I have actually lived and worked in the Third World. It sucks. They don't value life. They don't value anything except their immediate needs and how to meet them which usually means taking them from someone else through violent methods.

You want to disarm the law abiding who outnumber the criminals by many orders of magnitude, and you want to bring even MORE third world savages into the country with no attempt to control those who come here.

Face it dude, you're either incredibly stupid, or insane.

They don't seem to get that.

People who don't value human life will find ways to take human life. Those who do value human life will not kill people, even if they have the tools in front of them to do so.

Forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a moment, there is no reason to believe that crime would drop if guns were illegal.

Chicago is ABSOLUTE proof of this. Guns are illegal in Chicago, Has that correlated to less gun violence? Of course not because criminals don't obey laws, that's why they are fucking called criminals.

However, certain tools make the taking of human lives in large numbers much easier. And we should regulate who gets those tools. I have had my .250 Savage for over 50 years. I am quite proficient with it. However, five shots and I am out of ammo, have to revoad from the top. Very efficient gun for deer and elk. Not so much for a crowded night club. More than adaquete for self defense, don't recollect anyone having to take on an army around here recently. And even with a belt fed BAR, you will lose if you are taking on an army.

Doesn't matter. The worst mass killing at a nightclub in US history was the asshole in New York who burned 70 some odd people to death with a gallon of gasoline. Evil people do evil things and they will always find a way to do it. Far better to keep the third world savages OUT of this country don't you think? hat we can do. That actually works. Why is it you insist on bringing predators to this country to rape and murder our peaceful people? I am curious as to why you think that that is OK.

And how many times has this happened in the last 20 years versus the number of incidents of crazies killing multiple people with assault weapons? A true assholes arguement, Mr. Westwall. There is a rising tide of disgust with you mentally ill gun nuts that enable these massacres.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No one is suggesting they will "magically disappear". However, yes, or no. If we make assault weapons illegal, will it make it more difficult to attain an assault weapon?

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

That battle is already lost sir. the government already licenses many rights.

Also, I contend the government certainly has a right to set up a system that guarantees that only people who have a right are exercising that right. Take Voter ID laws, for example, voting IS a right. Yet, we regulate and make sure only those who actually CAN vote are doing so.

Same thing here.

AND my system is much more sane and fair than the current system we have where each locally elected county sheriff can just decide on his own who should and should not be allowed to own a gun.

Under MY system, the FBI will decide. Hell, we could even go a step further and institute a civilian ran oversight committee than worked in conjunction with the FBI to set standards and regulations regarding the system.

Would there need to be safeguards to keep the system pure? Yes, of course. Can it be done if we all work together? Of course.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

Can and do. A special license is required to own a .45 Thompson. The same license should be required to own any semi-auto that can take a high capacity magazine.

Nope, there should be ONE background check, if you pass it, then what guns you own is none of the government's business.

The EXACT same standard should apply to a fully automatic M4 that applies to .38 revolver. If you can be trusted with a weapon, you can be trusted with any weapon. Conversely, if you can't be trusted with a weapon, you can't be trusted with ANY weapon.

 

[westwall]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

Can and do. A special license is required to own a .45 Thompson. The same license should be required to own any semi-auto that can take a high capacity magazine.

Untrue. You have to pay an additional 200 Transfer tax for a Transferable TSMG. The only license requirement is to be a DEALER in machine guns. I own a 1921 Colt Thompson, and I am not a dealer. I have no special license to own it. You are simply wrong.

 

[westwall]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

That battle is already lost sir. the government already licenses many rights.

Also, I contend the government certainly has a right to set up a system that guarantees that only people who have a right are exercising that right. Take Voter ID laws, for example, voting IS a right. Yet, we regulate and make sure only those who actually CAN vote are doing so.

Same thing here.

AND my system is much more sane and fair than the current system we have where each locally elected county sheriff can just decide on his own who should and should not be allowed to own a gun.

Under MY system, the FBI will decide. Hell, we could even go a step further and institute a civilian ran oversight committee than worked in conjunction with the FBI to set standards and regulations regarding the system.

Would there need to be safeguards to keep the system pure? Yes, of course. Can it be done if we all work together? Of course.

If that battle were already lost we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Sonny Clark]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

Now, let's address a REAL question.

Why do you think confiscating assault weapons would keep criminals from obtaining assault weapons?

Further, why do you think forced deportation of illegal aliens is a bad idea, but forced confiscation of legal weapons is a good idea?

Can you explain your position on EITHER of those points?

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

FYI - Getting rid of illegal immigrants would be very cheap, and very easy to do.
SOLUTION:
Anyone employing, housing, feeding, or otherwise assisting, aiding, or abetting illegal immigrants, would have to serve life in prison with no possibility of parole, no exception. After one or two are arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced, the word would spread like a wild fire, and the illegals would run for the borders as fast as humanly possible. Problem solved.

NOTE:

It's impossible to get guns off our streets and out of the hands of those that really want them, regardless of type or size. It's impossible to trace and track all weapons in this country. The bad guys couldn't care less about laws. You can not legislate removing guns from society, it's impossible. Anyone that wants a gun, can get a gun, period.

Guns are exchanged among family members, gun collectors, hunters, handed down from generation to generation, sold from the trunk of cars, sold at yard sales, flea markets, on the internet, they come across our borders, stolen from evidence rooms at police stations, and sold on the black market. If you have the money and connections, you can get any gun you want, easily.

In addition, gang members are not going to turn in their guns. Criminals are not going to turn in their guns. Drug dealers are not going to turn in their guns. Pimps are not going to turn in their guns. Laws can not rid society of guns, and certainly not from those that intend to do harm with them.

Also, the real issue never has been guns in the first place. The real issue is PEOPLE. Guns by themselves harm no one. Guns are only deadly, dangerous, and evil when the wrong people use them to harm and kill others. The problem is mentally disturbed people, lunatics, crazies, those with nothing to live for, the suicidal, the haters, the ones seeking revenge, and others with issues not common among the sane of society. And, since the technology doesn't exist that would allow us to be mind readers, we never know who these people are, when will they go postal, or what is the trigger that will send them over the edge.

 

[westwall]

Czernobog why won't you address my questions coward?

Because I've answered your question - twice. I never said that it would eliminate the possibility. Unlike you, however, I do think it will reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed with assault weapons. Between 1994, and 2001, there were fewer than 1,800 crimes in the US using assault weapons. Between 2001, to 2007 that number jumped to nearly 400 per year. And that was with the faulty AWB as it was written. Do you seriously have any doubt that a properly written ban, removing the majority of assault weapons from the street would not have at least an equal, if not greater effect on crime? REALLY? Because the evidence indicates otherwise.

As to your second question, it's a bad idea because of the cost involved. I'm not talking about "confiscation". I'm not talking about people coming to your door to collect your weapons. I'm just talking about making ownership illegal. Since you, and your 80 million law abiding gun owners, respect the law so much, then as soon as it is no longer legal to own an assault weapon, no one should have to come collect them up. You abide by the law. You should willingly turn in any illegal merchandise, shouldn't you? After all, you respect, and obey the law.

The same cannot er said for rounding up illegals. It would cause, even by Trump's assessment, a tripling of ICE agents, adding nearly 200 billion dollars to the federal government. For what? Rounding up a bunch of immigrants, of whom less that 1/2 of 1 percent actually commit any crime other than coming here without the proper paper work? That's why forced deportation is a stupid idea, and an complete Assault Weapons Ban isn't.

i counter your first argument with this. Did making drugs illegal increase or decrease drug use in this country?

Well, based on the marked increase in marijuana use in both Washington, and Colorado, since it was legalized, I would say, yes. Yes it did decrease drug use.

Has nothing to do with the number of people moving to the legal state now does it. Furthermore the record keepers haven't been tracking the usage by people who obtain their marijuana from other sources so no one really knows.

Then it would submit id it is that difficult to track, then the question itself was one without a reliable answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Partially correct. We KNOW however, since we have the benefit of hindsight, that Prohibition did nothing but create organized crime. Alcohol violence INCREASED after alcohol was banned. Alcohol deaths INCREASED after prohibition. These are well known facts and they absolutely refute any argument that a gun ban would be any different..

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

That battle is already lost sir. the government already licenses many rights.

Also, I contend the government certainly has a right to set up a system that guarantees that only people who have a right are exercising that right. Take Voter ID laws, for example, voting IS a right. Yet, we regulate and make sure only those who actually CAN vote are doing so.

Same thing here.

AND my system is much more sane and fair than the current system we have where each locally elected county sheriff can just decide on his own who should and should not be allowed to own a gun.

Under MY system, the FBI will decide. Hell, we could even go a step further and institute a civilian ran oversight committee than worked in conjunction with the FBI to set standards and regulations regarding the system.

Would there need to be safeguards to keep the system pure? Yes, of course. Can it be done if we all work together? Of course.

If that battle were already lost we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So you don't have to have a license to concealed carry in most places?
You don't currently have to have a background check to buy a gun?
Differentiate. I'm not talking about a ban, and I'm not talking abut registering guns. I'm simply talking about registering as a person who is approved to buy guns that's it.

Do that, and the argument about background checks for private sells is OVER. It's just simple , either you have a marker on your ID that says you are legally qualified to own a gun then that is all anyone needs to know, they don't even need to know if you actually DO own a gun, or a thousand guns. No one's business.

Unless you have have a run in with the law and a gun becomes an issue, in which case you get an auto 10 year sentence if you don't have that ID marker.

 

[westwall]

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

No, we don't, because guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are. You bring third world people here to the US and are shocked when they continue to live by their third world culture which is overwhelmingly more violent than our own. I have actually lived and worked in the Third World. It sucks. They don't value life. They don't value anything except their immediate needs and how to meet them which usually means taking them from someone else through violent methods.

You want to disarm the law abiding who outnumber the criminals by many orders of magnitude, and you want to bring even MORE third world savages into the country with no attempt to control those who come here.

Face it dude, you're either incredibly stupid, or insane.

They don't seem to get that.

People who don't value human life will find ways to take human life. Those who do value human life will not kill people, even if they have the tools in front of them to do so.

Forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a moment, there is no reason to believe that crime would drop if guns were illegal.

Chicago is ABSOLUTE proof of this. Guns are illegal in Chicago, Has that correlated to less gun violence? Of course not because criminals don't obey laws, that's why they are fucking called criminals.

However, certain tools make the taking of human lives in large numbers much easier. And we should regulate who gets those tools. I have had my .250 Savage for over 50 years. I am quite proficient with it. However, five shots and I am out of ammo, have to revoad from the top. Very efficient gun for deer and elk. Not so much for a crowded night club. More than adaquete for self defense, don't recollect anyone having to take on an army around here recently. And even with a belt fed BAR, you will lose if you are taking on an army.

Doesn't matter. The worst mass killing at a nightclub in US history was the asshole in New York who burned 70 some odd people to death with a gallon of gasoline. Evil people do evil things and they will always find a way to do it. Far better to keep the third world savages OUT of this country don't you think? hat we can do. That actually works. Why is it you insist on bringing predators to this country to rape and murder our peaceful people? I am curious as to why you think that that is OK.

And how many times has this happened in the last 20 years versus the number of incidents of crazies killing multiple people with assault weapons? A true assholes arguement, Mr. Westwall. There is a rising tide of disgust with you mentally ill gun nuts that enable these massacres.

These massacres have been made WORSE because you silly people seem to think that a "gun free zone" (the overwhelming location for ALL of these atrocities) will keep bad people away. The rising tide of disgust is against you, and your fellow progressives who bring third world savages to this country and set them on the public with no oversight whatsoever.

 

[westwall]

WE should do what Japan does....they have a 30 year sentence for gun crimes...now even the Yakuza are reluctant to use them.

We should have a general background check for citizens that would count for job background checks..that way you could hide who was getting the check to buy a gun...that would work better than that license.

I have to disagree on it though.....licensing gun owners is not necessary. The background check at the gun store is enough. Felons can be arrested if they are caught with a gun...so if you are stopped by police and have a gun on you, they can run your i.d. and see if you have any convictions...if you do, you are arrested, if not, you go on your way...as we see in New York, New Jersey and other places...any licensing scheme can be used to deny law abiding people acces to guns.

The flag on your name....that might work....have to flesh it out more.

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

That battle is already lost sir. the government already licenses many rights.

Also, I contend the government certainly has a right to set up a system that guarantees that only people who have a right are exercising that right. Take Voter ID laws, for example, voting IS a right. Yet, we regulate and make sure only those who actually CAN vote are doing so.

Same thing here.

AND my system is much more sane and fair than the current system we have where each locally elected county sheriff can just decide on his own who should and should not be allowed to own a gun.

Under MY system, the FBI will decide. Hell, we could even go a step further and institute a civilian ran oversight committee than worked in conjunction with the FBI to set standards and regulations regarding the system.

Would there need to be safeguards to keep the system pure? Yes, of course. Can it be done if we all work together? Of course.

If that battle were already lost we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So you don't have to have a license to concealed carry in most places?
You don't currently have to have a background check to buy a gun?
Differentiate. I'm not talking about a ban, and I'm not talking abut registering guns. I'm simply talking about registering as a person who is approved to buy guns that's it.

Do that, and the argument about background checks for private sells is OVER. It's just simple , either you have a marker on your ID that says you are legally qualified to own a gun then that is all anyone needs to know, they don't even need to know if you actually DO own a gun, or a thousand guns. No one's business.

Unless you have have a run in with the law and a gun becomes an issue, in which case you get an auto 10 year sentence if you don't have that ID marker.

My CCW says "PERMIT". Not a license. A background check of a person is not a license to be obtained to purchase a weapon.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

No, we don't, because guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are. You bring third world people here to the US and are shocked when they continue to live by their third world culture which is overwhelmingly more violent than our own. I have actually lived and worked in the Third World. It sucks. They don't value life. They don't value anything except their immediate needs and how to meet them which usually means taking them from someone else through violent methods.

You want to disarm the law abiding who outnumber the criminals by many orders of magnitude, and you want to bring even MORE third world savages into the country with no attempt to control those who come here.

Face it dude, you're either incredibly stupid, or insane.

They don't seem to get that.

People who don't value human life will find ways to take human life. Those who do value human life will not kill people, even if they have the tools in front of them to do so.

Forgetting the 2nd Amendment for a moment, there is no reason to believe that crime would drop if guns were illegal.

Chicago is ABSOLUTE proof of this. Guns are illegal in Chicago, Has that correlated to less gun violence? Of course not because criminals don't obey laws, that's why they are fucking called criminals.

However, certain tools make the taking of human lives in large numbers much easier. And we should regulate who gets those tools. I have had my .250 Savage for over 50 years. I am quite proficient with it. However, five shots and I am out of ammo, have to revoad from the top. Very efficient gun for deer and elk. Not so much for a crowded night club. More than adaquete for self defense, don't recollect anyone having to take on an army around here recently. And even with a belt fed BAR, you will lose if you are taking on an army.

Doesn't matter. The worst mass killing at a nightclub in US history was the asshole in New York who burned 70 some odd people to death with a gallon of gasoline. Evil people do evil things and they will always find a way to do it. Far better to keep the third world savages OUT of this country don't you think? hat we can do. That actually works. Why is it you insist on bringing predators to this country to rape and murder our peaceful people? I am curious as to why you think that that is OK.

And how many times has this happened in the last 20 years versus the number of incidents of crazies killing multiple people with assault weapons? A true assholes arguement, Mr. Westwall. There is a rising tide of disgust with you mentally ill gun nuts that enable these massacres.

These massacres have been made WORSE because you silly people seem to think that a "gun free zone" (the overwhelming location for ALL of these atrocities) will keep bad people away. The rising tide of disgust is against you, and your fellow progressives who bring third world savages to this country and set them on the public with no oversight whatsoever.

That is true, but now is the time for the NRA and gun right's advocates to step up on THEIR own and make some concessions and truly make the retards on the left look retarded.

MY suggestion does exactly that. There is NOTHING in my plan than affects your right in any way. I mean one time you have to undergo a pretty thorough back ground check okay, but after that the government doesn't have jack shit to say about what you own, carry , buy, or sell, UNLESS you do so illegally.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Listen though, if you license owners, you don't have to go through the background check rigamorale every time you want to purchase ammo or even a new gun. You just hand the guy your ID he sends it through the reader. Clear and no flags, no problem you get to buy your stuff right on the spot.

I would even go one step further, let's implement The Real ID Act , right now and then your state ID will have a chip on it just like your credit card and you wouldn't even need a separate ID to buy guns, the information stored on your DL would indicate that you are cleared to vote, cleared to buy guns, and whatever else the government needs to know.

Now think about what I just proposed as to compared to the current background check, where it's a simple matter of comparing back ground check to store receipt to tell exactly what gun you now own. It's a defacto gun registration.

Done my way , no records are even kept after your initial background check is passed. Unless things change and your clearance is removed.

So there is no record to compare to gun store receipts.

You can't license a Right. The second you do it is no longer a Right. Furthermore, once a licensing scheme is in place it is but a minor step to placing restrictions on those licenses that make it impossible for anyone but those people the politicians like to obtain them.

It is a foolish person who actually believes the government won't give itself more power.

That battle is already lost sir. the government already licenses many rights.

Also, I contend the government certainly has a right to set up a system that guarantees that only people who have a right are exercising that right. Take Voter ID laws, for example, voting IS a right. Yet, we regulate and make sure only those who actually CAN vote are doing so.

Same thing here.

AND my system is much more sane and fair than the current system we have where each locally elected county sheriff can just decide on his own who should and should not be allowed to own a gun.

Under MY system, the FBI will decide. Hell, we could even go a step further and institute a civilian ran oversight committee than worked in conjunction with the FBI to set standards and regulations regarding the system.

Would there need to be safeguards to keep the system pure? Yes, of course. Can it be done if we all work together? Of course.

If that battle were already lost we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So you don't have to have a license to concealed carry in most places?
You don't currently have to have a background check to buy a gun?
Differentiate. I'm not talking about a ban, and I'm not talking abut registering guns. I'm simply talking about registering as a person who is approved to buy guns that's it.

Do that, and the argument about background checks for private sells is OVER. It's just simple , either you have a marker on your ID that says you are legally qualified to own a gun then that is all anyone needs to know, they don't even need to know if you actually DO own a gun, or a thousand guns. No one's business.

Unless you have have a run in with the law and a gun becomes an issue, in which case you get an auto 10 year sentence if you don't have that ID marker.

My CCW says "PERMIT". Not a license. A background check of a person is not a license to be obtained to purchase a weapon.

You're being hard headed and obtuse my friend.

The system I proposed does NOTHING to harm your rights as long as you don't break the law, while at the same ensuring that we are doing everything we can to ensure that those who shouldn't have weapons don't have legal access to them.

 

[Old Rocks]

For lawful people, yes, they will disappear. For criminals, it will have no impact. This has been shown over and over and over. Were it not a fact, the war on drugs, and the prior war on liquor would have been wildly successful, and no one would be alcoholics, nor addicted to drugs.

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

Correct, I do not want to do anything to take assault weapons from law abiding citizens.

Gee, I wonder why you ignored the other half of my post.

Why do liberals such as yourself always do that, you ask questions and you ask questions and get mad when they aren't answered. Then you refuse to answer any questions asked of you.

Look. Reality. Many millions of rapid fire semi-automatics on the street right now. No way to confiscated them. The crazies will hide them, and normally law abiding citizens will do the same. However, you can apply the same laws as apply to a fully automatic .45 Thompson. And make it a criminal offense if you have a semi-automatic gun that has the capability of a large capacity magazine when you are off you own property. Most citizens, if they were willing to jump through the hoops, could get such a license. Those than cannot, should not have these guns.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Frankly, I could probably agree with a reinstatement of the AWB as was written. The issue for ME is, we KNOW the current dolts wouldn't be happy with that, they want to seize those that are already in private hands as well, and that would not be reasonable nor fair.

This is easily proven by the fact that Obama could issue an EO ordering that no new asssault weapons may be sold in this country and the cowards in Congress would not stand up to him, but if he did that, then gun crime might actually drop and they would lose their ability to claim we need to collect guns. No one is going to agree to collecting guns if very few people are being shot.. If he tried for an EO that ordered the collection of guns though, Congress would stand up to that, OR it would fail a court challenge.

There hope is that in 5 years, 10 tops enough people will have been killed with guns that an outright collection of guns will pass and become law.

It's pathetic.

I have offered a simple solution.

1. Background checks equal to receiving a security clearance to get a license to buy guns. Once you have that license, no one keeps track of what you buy. We're not registering guns.

2. Make it an additional crime if you posses a gun without the requisite background check

3. Place flags that temporarily suspend your license if you get in trouble with the law, until things can be cleared up.

4. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for any crime involving a gun, this includes even if you are found in violation of #2 above.

Now, if I can figure that out, why can't Congress, or the President?

Why would you agree with the AWB, as written? What would it actually accomplish in terms of reducing the assault weapons on the streets?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's why I'd agree to it, it would do nothing except for give you stupid liberals a security blanket.

So, you don't actually want to do anything to get assault weapons off the street. You just want to appear that you agree we need to get assault weapons off the street. Got it.

Correct, I do not want to do anything to take assault weapons from law abiding citizens.

Gee, I wonder why you ignored the other half of my post.

Why do liberals such as yourself always do that, you ask questions and you ask questions and get mad when they aren't answered. Then you refuse to answer any questions asked of you.

Look. Reality. Many millions of rapid fire semi-automatics on the street right now. No way to confiscated them. The crazies will hide them, and normally law abiding citizens will do the same. However, you can apply the same laws as apply to a fully automatic .45 Thompson. And make it a criminal offense if you have a semi-automatic gun that has the capability of a large capacity magazine when you are off you own property. Most citizens, if they were willing to jump through the hoops, could get such a license. Those than cannot, should not have these guns.

Have you been reading my posts? I have said EXACTLY That, hell I think there should be ONE back ground check, if I can't trust you with an M4, I don't want you in public with a .38.

There should be ONE back ground check, that includes an interview with the FBI . If you pass no one else should be able to tell you what firearms you can or can't own.

If you get caught in posession of a weapon without said license, too fucking bad for you, 10 years in prison, just for that offense.

That fixes everything.

But you have idiots of the left screaming that guns need to be registered and or confiscated and morons on the right screaming that the government can't license gun owners and thus nothing gets done.