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

[Czernobog]

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.

Huh. Fair&Balanced calls me a coward for ignoring his ignorant questions, then, because he didn't like the answers, just pretends that I didn't answer them. Whose the coward, now?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Huh. Fair&Balanced calls me a coward for ignoring his ignorant questions, then, because he didn't like the answers, just pretends that I didn't answer them. Whose the coward, now?

I responded to your ignorant answers earlier in the thread.

 

[westwall]

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.

But it does. That's the point. Who regulates licenses? The Government. Who has been pushing for gun control. The Government. Why did the Founders write the 2nd Amendment in the first place. TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That's why it is a Right and not a "good idea". The second you give your power (your Rights) to the Government, the Government will begin working on ways to get even more power. Then, when the Government has enough power, inevitably, it will begin figuring out ways to get rid of those people it doesn't like. That is the natural evolution of Government throughout time.

That's why the Founders made that process as difficult as possible. Our very system of government was set up to be adversarial. That was the INTENT. The Founders didn't want the government to be all nice and working together because they KNEW that when government works for itself it does so at the expense of the PEOPLE.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Huh. Fair&Balanced calls me a coward for ignoring his ignorant questions, then, because he didn't like the answers, just pretends that I didn't answer them. Whose the coward, now?

I responded to your ignorant answers earlier in the thread.

Funny...I seem to have missed that. And I looked at every response since I posted. Care to repeat your answer?

 

[westwall]

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.

How many concessions do you wish to give them? What do we ever get in return? I have to date, and I am a lot older than you, NEVER seen a benefit come to us for giving up some part of our gun rights. What did we get when the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed? Tell me? If you are going to talk concession, what does the other side have to give up? To date it has ALL been one sided. They have NEVER given up anything.

It is time for that bullshit to stop.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

But it does. That's the point. Who regulates licenses? The Government. Who has been pushing for gun control. The Government. Why did the Founders write the 2nd Amendment in the first place. TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That's why it is a Right and not a "good idea". The second you give your power (your Rights) to the Government, the Government will begin working on ways to get even more power. Then, when the Government has enough power, inevitably, it will begin figuring out ways to get rid of those people it doesn't like. That is the natural evolution of Government throughout time.

That's why the Founders made that process as difficult as possible. Our very system of government was set up to be adversarial. That was the INTENT. The Founders didn't want the government to be all nice and working together because they KNEW that when government works for itself it does so at the expense of the PEOPLE.

THe intent? Son you need to read up, the founding fathers INTENDED for gun ownership to be regulated. That's a fact.

And that is exactly what my proposal does, it regulates gun ownership. NOT GUNS. If you have the little license (or whatever term you choose to use , it wouldn't be an actual license) you can own any firearm you like, from a .38 revolver to an M4, I don't care. And how many of each you own is no one's business. All we the people l(and that is after all what the government is SUPPOSED to be) care about is "are you allowed to exercise your right? Now without this "license" how would the government POSSIBLY be able to know if you were allowed to exercise this right or not?

They of course would NOT be able to. You are coming across as someone who wants NO regulations on who may or may not have a gun.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

How many concessions do you wish to give them? What do we ever get in return? I have to date, and I am a lot older than you, NEVER seen a benefit come to us for giving up some part of our gun rights. What did we get when the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed? Tell me? If you are going to talk concession, what does the other side have to give up? To date it has ALL been one sided. They have NEVER given up anything.

It is time for that bullshit to stop.

I agree, it can't be one sided. What are they giving up ? Under my plan? Are you serious? My plan - among other things - gets rid of the ban on fully automatic weapons. How's that for a concession from the left, to begin with? want to buy an UZI? Have you received the appropriate background check? Yes, great then none of the government's business if you buy an UZI.

 

[westwall]

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.

But it does. That's the point. Who regulates licenses? The Government. Who has been pushing for gun control. The Government. Why did the Founders write the 2nd Amendment in the first place. TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That's why it is a Right and not a "good idea". The second you give your power (your Rights) to the Government, the Government will begin working on ways to get even more power. Then, when the Government has enough power, inevitably, it will begin figuring out ways to get rid of those people it doesn't like. That is the natural evolution of Government throughout time.

That's why the Founders made that process as difficult as possible. Our very system of government was set up to be adversarial. That was the INTENT. The Founders didn't want the government to be all nice and working together because they KNEW that when government works for itself it does so at the expense of the PEOPLE.

THe intent? Son you need to read up, the founding fathers INTENDED for gun ownership to be regulated. That's a fact.

And that is exactly what my proposal does, it regulates gun ownership. NOT GUNS. If you have the little license (or whatever term you choose to use , it wouldn't be an actual license) you can own any firearm you like, from a .38 revolver to an M4, I don't care. And how many of each you own is no one's business. All we the people l(and that is after all what the government is SUPPOSED to be) care about is "are you allowed to exercise your right? Now without this "license" how would the government POSSIBLY be able to know if you were allowed to exercise this right or not?

They of course would NOT be able to. You are coming across as someone who wants NO regulations on who may or may not have a gun.

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers then, and the various collections of the Founders letters as well. I have read far more on the subject than you ever will.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

But it does. That's the point. Who regulates licenses? The Government. Who has been pushing for gun control. The Government. Why did the Founders write the 2nd Amendment in the first place. TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That's why it is a Right and not a "good idea". The second you give your power (your Rights) to the Government, the Government will begin working on ways to get even more power. Then, when the Government has enough power, inevitably, it will begin figuring out ways to get rid of those people it doesn't like. That is the natural evolution of Government throughout time.

That's why the Founders made that process as difficult as possible. Our very system of government was set up to be adversarial. That was the INTENT. The Founders didn't want the government to be all nice and working together because they KNEW that when government works for itself it does so at the expense of the PEOPLE.

THe intent? Son you need to read up, the founding fathers INTENDED for gun ownership to be regulated. That's a fact.

And that is exactly what my proposal does, it regulates gun ownership. NOT GUNS. If you have the little license (or whatever term you choose to use , it wouldn't be an actual license) you can own any firearm you like, from a .38 revolver to an M4, I don't care. And how many of each you own is no one's business. All we the people l(and that is after all what the government is SUPPOSED to be) care about is "are you allowed to exercise your right? Now without this "license" how would the government POSSIBLY be able to know if you were allowed to exercise this right or not?

They of course would NOT be able to. You are coming across as someone who wants NO regulations on who may or may not have a gun.

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers then, and the various collections of the Founders letters as well. I have read far more on the subject than you ever will.

LOL okay bro. If you were just studied up on the matter you would KNOW that the colonials actually mandated gun registration, as every adult male had to have a musket and shot and that was kept track of by the government.

Among other things.

 

[westwall]

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.

How many concessions do you wish to give them? What do we ever get in return? I have to date, and I am a lot older than you, NEVER seen a benefit come to us for giving up some part of our gun rights. What did we get when the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed? Tell me? If you are going to talk concession, what does the other side have to give up? To date it has ALL been one sided. They have NEVER given up anything.

It is time for that bullshit to stop.

I agree, it can't be one sided. What are they giving up ? Under my plan? Are you serious? My plan - among other things - gets rid of the ban on fully automatic weapons. How's that for a concession from the left, to begin with? want to buy an UZI? Have you received the appropriate background check? Yes, great then none of the government's business if you buy an UZI.

But once the license system is in place the government can go right back and ban everything yet again. Your plan requires government to be honest. Where or where has government EVER been honest? It is run by people. People are avaricious, jealous, petty tyrants when given the power to be so. Just imagine the gun licensing problems when you turn it over to the DMV, which is what you are advocating.

Talk about a clusterfuck.

 

[westwall]

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.

But it does. That's the point. Who regulates licenses? The Government. Who has been pushing for gun control. The Government. Why did the Founders write the 2nd Amendment in the first place. TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That's why it is a Right and not a "good idea". The second you give your power (your Rights) to the Government, the Government will begin working on ways to get even more power. Then, when the Government has enough power, inevitably, it will begin figuring out ways to get rid of those people it doesn't like. That is the natural evolution of Government throughout time.

That's why the Founders made that process as difficult as possible. Our very system of government was set up to be adversarial. That was the INTENT. The Founders didn't want the government to be all nice and working together because they KNEW that when government works for itself it does so at the expense of the PEOPLE.

THe intent? Son you need to read up, the founding fathers INTENDED for gun ownership to be regulated. That's a fact.

And that is exactly what my proposal does, it regulates gun ownership. NOT GUNS. If you have the little license (or whatever term you choose to use , it wouldn't be an actual license) you can own any firearm you like, from a .38 revolver to an M4, I don't care. And how many of each you own is no one's business. All we the people l(and that is after all what the government is SUPPOSED to be) care about is "are you allowed to exercise your right? Now without this "license" how would the government POSSIBLY be able to know if you were allowed to exercise this right or not?

They of course would NOT be able to. You are coming across as someone who wants NO regulations on who may or may not have a gun.

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers then, and the various collections of the Founders letters as well. I have read far more on the subject than you ever will.

LOL okay bro. If you were just studied up on the matter you would KNOW that the colonials actually mandated gun registration, as every adult male had to have a musket and shot and that was kept track of by the government.

Among other things.

Really? Care to show us one of these gun registration lists? They don't exist because they never existed. The local militia commanders had lists of the PEOPLE (I actually own one of those lists) but there is no mention of what weapon they had. None at all.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

How many concessions do you wish to give them? What do we ever get in return? I have to date, and I am a lot older than you, NEVER seen a benefit come to us for giving up some part of our gun rights. What did we get when the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed? Tell me? If you are going to talk concession, what does the other side have to give up? To date it has ALL been one sided. They have NEVER given up anything.

It is time for that bullshit to stop.

I agree, it can't be one sided. What are they giving up ? Under my plan? Are you serious? My plan - among other things - gets rid of the ban on fully automatic weapons. How's that for a concession from the left, to begin with? want to buy an UZI? Have you received the appropriate background check? Yes, great then none of the government's business if you buy an UZI.

But once the license system is in place the government can go right back and ban everything yet again. Your plan requires government to be honest. Where or where has government EVER been honest? It is run by people. People are avaricious, jealous, petty tyrants when given the power to be so. Just imagine the gun licensing problems when you turn it over to the DMV, which is what you are advocating.

Talk about a clusterfuck.

Oh, I concede THAT point. We need to decluster our government.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

But it does. That's the point. Who regulates licenses? The Government. Who has been pushing for gun control. The Government. Why did the Founders write the 2nd Amendment in the first place. TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That's why it is a Right and not a "good idea". The second you give your power (your Rights) to the Government, the Government will begin working on ways to get even more power. Then, when the Government has enough power, inevitably, it will begin figuring out ways to get rid of those people it doesn't like. That is the natural evolution of Government throughout time.

That's why the Founders made that process as difficult as possible. Our very system of government was set up to be adversarial. That was the INTENT. The Founders didn't want the government to be all nice and working together because they KNEW that when government works for itself it does so at the expense of the PEOPLE.

THe intent? Son you need to read up, the founding fathers INTENDED for gun ownership to be regulated. That's a fact.

And that is exactly what my proposal does, it regulates gun ownership. NOT GUNS. If you have the little license (or whatever term you choose to use , it wouldn't be an actual license) you can own any firearm you like, from a .38 revolver to an M4, I don't care. And how many of each you own is no one's business. All we the people l(and that is after all what the government is SUPPOSED to be) care about is "are you allowed to exercise your right? Now without this "license" how would the government POSSIBLY be able to know if you were allowed to exercise this right or not?

They of course would NOT be able to. You are coming across as someone who wants NO regulations on who may or may not have a gun.

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers then, and the various collections of the Founders letters as well. I have read far more on the subject than you ever will.

LOL okay bro. If you were just studied up on the matter you would KNOW that the colonials actually mandated gun registration, as every adult male had to have a musket and shot and that was kept track of by the government.

Among other things.

Really? Care to show us one of these gun registration lists? They don't exist because they never existed. The local militia commanders had lists of the PEOPLE (I actually own one of those lists) but there is no mention of what weapon they had. None at all.

HAHAHAHAHA that's exactly what the fuck I'm proposing. The government will have a list of who has been background checked but NO list of what guns they do or don't own. NONE. ZILCH, ZERO, NO REFERENCE to what guns you have. The system merely says "back ground check complete" PERIOD.

 

[westwall]

But it does. That's the point. Who regulates licenses? The Government. Who has been pushing for gun control. The Government. Why did the Founders write the 2nd Amendment in the first place. TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT. That's why it is a Right and not a "good idea". The second you give your power (your Rights) to the Government, the Government will begin working on ways to get even more power. Then, when the Government has enough power, inevitably, it will begin figuring out ways to get rid of those people it doesn't like. That is the natural evolution of Government throughout time.

That's why the Founders made that process as difficult as possible. Our very system of government was set up to be adversarial. That was the INTENT. The Founders didn't want the government to be all nice and working together because they KNEW that when government works for itself it does so at the expense of the PEOPLE.

THe intent? Son you need to read up, the founding fathers INTENDED for gun ownership to be regulated. That's a fact.

And that is exactly what my proposal does, it regulates gun ownership. NOT GUNS. If you have the little license (or whatever term you choose to use , it wouldn't be an actual license) you can own any firearm you like, from a .38 revolver to an M4, I don't care. And how many of each you own is no one's business. All we the people l(and that is after all what the government is SUPPOSED to be) care about is "are you allowed to exercise your right? Now without this "license" how would the government POSSIBLY be able to know if you were allowed to exercise this right or not?

They of course would NOT be able to. You are coming across as someone who wants NO regulations on who may or may not have a gun.

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers then, and the various collections of the Founders letters as well. I have read far more on the subject than you ever will.

LOL okay bro. If you were just studied up on the matter you would KNOW that the colonials actually mandated gun registration, as every adult male had to have a musket and shot and that was kept track of by the government.

Among other things.

Really? Care to show us one of these gun registration lists? They don't exist because they never existed. The local militia commanders had lists of the PEOPLE (I actually own one of those lists) but there is no mention of what weapon they had. None at all.

HAHAHAHAHA that's exactly what the fuck I'm proposing. The government will have a list of who has been background checked but NO list of what guns they do or don't own. NONE. ZILCH, ZERO, NO REFERENCE to what guns you have. The system merely says "back ground check complete" PERIOD.

No, it isn't. The list was merely of the people available in case of call up. That's all. It consists of "Bob Holobird, son of Fred Holobird, Trenton Causeway" That's it. It is a list of the able bodied men and that's all. There is no mention of firearm, or even if they have a knife. Thus there is no gun registration at all. It is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are advocating.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

THe intent? Son you need to read up, the founding fathers INTENDED for gun ownership to be regulated. That's a fact.

And that is exactly what my proposal does, it regulates gun ownership. NOT GUNS. If you have the little license (or whatever term you choose to use , it wouldn't be an actual license) you can own any firearm you like, from a .38 revolver to an M4, I don't care. And how many of each you own is no one's business. All we the people l(and that is after all what the government is SUPPOSED to be) care about is "are you allowed to exercise your right? Now without this "license" how would the government POSSIBLY be able to know if you were allowed to exercise this right or not?

They of course would NOT be able to. You are coming across as someone who wants NO regulations on who may or may not have a gun.

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers then, and the various collections of the Founders letters as well. I have read far more on the subject than you ever will.

LOL okay bro. If you were just studied up on the matter you would KNOW that the colonials actually mandated gun registration, as every adult male had to have a musket and shot and that was kept track of by the government.

Among other things.

Really? Care to show us one of these gun registration lists? They don't exist because they never existed. The local militia commanders had lists of the PEOPLE (I actually own one of those lists) but there is no mention of what weapon they had. None at all.

HAHAHAHAHA that's exactly what the fuck I'm proposing. The government will have a list of who has been background checked but NO list of what guns they do or don't own. NONE. ZILCH, ZERO, NO REFERENCE to what guns you have. The system merely says "back ground check complete" PERIOD.

No, it isn't. The list was merely of the people available in case of call up. That's all. It consists of "Bob Holobird, son of Fred Holobird, Trenton Causeway" That's it. It is a list of the able bodied men and that's all. There is no mention of firearm, or even if they have a knife. Thus there is no gun registration at all. It is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are advocating.

You are WRONG

http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Colonial_Firearms_regulation.pdf

Gun ownership was MANDATED and the state governments kept lists.

 

[westwall]

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers then, and the various collections of the Founders letters as well. I have read far more on the subject than you ever will.

LOL okay bro. If you were just studied up on the matter you would KNOW that the colonials actually mandated gun registration, as every adult male had to have a musket and shot and that was kept track of by the government.

Among other things.

Really? Care to show us one of these gun registration lists? They don't exist because they never existed. The local militia commanders had lists of the PEOPLE (I actually own one of those lists) but there is no mention of what weapon they had. None at all.

HAHAHAHAHA that's exactly what the fuck I'm proposing. The government will have a list of who has been background checked but NO list of what guns they do or don't own. NONE. ZILCH, ZERO, NO REFERENCE to what guns you have. The system merely says "back ground check complete" PERIOD.

No, it isn't. The list was merely of the people available in case of call up. That's all. It consists of "Bob Holobird, son of Fred Holobird, Trenton Causeway" That's it. It is a list of the able bodied men and that's all. There is no mention of firearm, or even if they have a knife. Thus there is no gun registration at all. It is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are advocating.

You are WRONG

http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Colonial_Firearms_regulation.pdf

Gun ownership was MANDATED and the state governments kept lists.

Did you bother to notice that ALL of those militias sited are PRE REVOLUTION? Of course the CROWN didn't trust the colonists. Why the hell do you think we revolted?




"Massachusetts Bay Colony, like many modern governments, expressed its concern about the nexus of guns and children. A May 14, 1645 order directed that “all youth within this jurisdiction, from ten yeares ould to the age of sixteen yeares, shalbe instructed, by some one of the officers of the band, or some other experienced souldier… upon the usuall training dayes, in the exercise of armes, as small guns, halfe pikes, bowes & arrows…..”xxvi The duty to be armed meant that even children were required to learn to use a gun. F. New Haven and Plymouth Other colonies also required their free adult males to own guns. New Haven Colony passed such laws in 1639, 1643, 1644, and 1646.xxvii Plymouth Colony did the same in 1632, 1636, and 1671 (although the last statute is less clear than the earlier two as to requiring private ownership).xxviii G. New Hampshire A statute in New Hampshire‟s 1716 compilation ordered “That all Male Persons from Sixteen Years of Age to Sixty, (other than such as are herein after excepted) shall bear Arms … allowing Three Months time to every Son after his coming to Sixteen Years of Age, and every Servant so long, after his time is out, to provide themselves with Arms and Ammunition…. That every Listed Souldier and Housholder, (except Troopers) shall be always provided with a well fix‟d, Firelock Musket, of Musket or Bastard-Musket bore,… or other good Fire-Arms, to the satisfaction of the Commission Officers of the Company… on penalty of Six Shillings for want of Such Arms, as is hereby required….” [emphasis in original] Similar requirements were imposed on cavalrymen.xxix H. New Jersey New Jersey‟s 1703 militia statute was similar, requiring all men “between the Age of Sixteen and Fifty years” with the exception of ministers, physicians, school masters, “Civil Officers of the Government,” members of the legislature, and slaves, to be members of the militia. “Every one of which is listed shall be sufficiently armed with one good sufficient Musquet or Fusee well fixed, a Sword or [Bayonet], a Cartouch box or Powder-horn, a pound of"

 

[Fair&Balanced]

LOL okay bro. If you were just studied up on the matter you would KNOW that the colonials actually mandated gun registration, as every adult male had to have a musket and shot and that was kept track of by the government.

Among other things.

Really? Care to show us one of these gun registration lists? They don't exist because they never existed. The local militia commanders had lists of the PEOPLE (I actually own one of those lists) but there is no mention of what weapon they had. None at all.

HAHAHAHAHA that's exactly what the fuck I'm proposing. The government will have a list of who has been background checked but NO list of what guns they do or don't own. NONE. ZILCH, ZERO, NO REFERENCE to what guns you have. The system merely says "back ground check complete" PERIOD.

No, it isn't. The list was merely of the people available in case of call up. That's all. It consists of "Bob Holobird, son of Fred Holobird, Trenton Causeway" That's it. It is a list of the able bodied men and that's all. There is no mention of firearm, or even if they have a knife. Thus there is no gun registration at all. It is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are advocating.

You are WRONG

http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Colonial_Firearms_regulation.pdf

Gun ownership was MANDATED and the state governments kept lists.

Did you bother to notice that ALL of those militias sited are PRE REVOLUTION? Of course the CROWN didn't trust the colonists. Why the hell do you think we revolted?




"Massachusetts Bay Colony, like many modern governments, expressed its concern about the nexus of guns and children. A May 14, 1645 order directed that “all youth within this jurisdiction, from ten yeares ould to the age of sixteen yeares, shalbe instructed, by some one of the officers of the band, or some other experienced souldier… upon the usuall training dayes, in the exercise of armes, as small guns, halfe pikes, bowes & arrows…..”xxvi The duty to be armed meant that even children were required to learn to use a gun. F. New Haven and Plymouth Other colonies also required their free adult males to own guns. New Haven Colony passed such laws in 1639, 1643, 1644, and 1646.xxvii Plymouth Colony did the same in 1632, 1636, and 1671 (although the last statute is less clear than the earlier two as to requiring private ownership).xxviii G. New Hampshire A statute in New Hampshire‟s 1716 compilation ordered “That all Male Persons from Sixteen Years of Age to Sixty, (other than such as are herein after excepted) shall bear Arms … allowing Three Months time to every Son after his coming to Sixteen Years of Age, and every Servant so long, after his time is out, to provide themselves with Arms and Ammunition…. That every Listed Souldier and Housholder, (except Troopers) shall be always provided with a well fix‟d, Firelock Musket, of Musket or Bastard-Musket bore,… or other good Fire-Arms, to the satisfaction of the Commission Officers of the Company… on penalty of Six Shillings for want of Such Arms, as is hereby required….” [emphasis in original] Similar requirements were imposed on cavalrymen.xxix H. New Jersey New Jersey‟s 1703 militia statute was similar, requiring all men “between the Age of Sixteen and Fifty years” with the exception of ministers, physicians, school masters, “Civil Officers of the Government,” members of the legislature, and slaves, to be members of the militia. “Every one of which is listed shall be sufficiently armed with one good sufficient Musquet or Fusee well fixed, a Sword or [Bayonet], a Cartouch box or Powder-horn, a pound of"

The British BANNED guns, that's at least part of why we revolted. They banned guns in response to early colonial law mandating gun ownership. They essentially said "oh no you can't have a gun in every home, in fact turn all your guns in"

But yes, the people who eventually would form our government mandated gun ownership. That's a fact.

And you still haven't answered. How does extending a program that already exists to ensure that only those who actually have the right to own guns can purchase guns a burden on YOUR rights?

It's just common sense that the government should have a system to make sure you actually have a right to exercise a right. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are FOR voter id?

 

[2aguy]

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.

The Germans in the 1920s would have agreed with you completely....those same Germans, in the 1930s would see how foolish your point is.....

The Mexicans across our border...being murdered in the 10s of thousands each year by the police and military armed with rifles with detachable magazines........and their drug cartel buddies...would also disagree with you...

Look up the Autodefensas and the pieces of crap rifles they have to cobble together to fight against the cops, military and drug cartels...

 

[2aguy]

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.

There are 8 million of those rifles in private hands...at most 1 or 2 are used illegally each year....

8,000,000 to 2.....not a reason to force normal gun owners to get a special license to exercise a Right....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Would that be like the IRS awarding tax free status to political groups...would it work like that.....?