The Right To Bear Arms

[Rustic]

Private sales are exactly that… Private... none of all of yours or my business and certainly none of the federal government business.

So the only reason anyone would do a private sale is if they wanted to avoid a background check.

Now why would they want to avoid a background check?

No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol

It sounds to me like you'd sell a gun to your family member even if you knew they had a criminal conviction, were on a no-fly list, or have a domestic abuse charge.

That's the only reason why you'd sell to someone privately...because you knew they couldn't pass a background check.

Na, It’s a Second Amendment thing you would not understand...

 

[Rustic]

Exactly that... private sales. Duh... lol

Right...so a private sale occurs because the buyer wouldn't be able to purchase the gun through a retailer because the buyer wouldn't pass the background check.

Which means your claim that you privately sell to "law abiding persons" is bullshit because you aren't verifying that. Why sell privately when you can sell retail? Simple; the buyer wouldn't be able to pass a background check, and you're a greedy person who wants to make money off that.

You want to make money by selling your guns to criminals, terrorists, and wife beaters because you cannot find enough customers who could pass a background check.

So the blood of innocent victims falls on your greedy, bloody, fat sausage fingers that can't operate an ipad, but we're assured by you can operate a gun. LOL. Whatever.

Na, Private sales are not any business of the federal government, And if you and I… Live with it it’s the law of the land

 

[Rustic]

There is a reason why firearm registration is unconstitutional, because the federal government has no business in such things.
They do not qualify

No one's calling for that, so you're building a straw man to distract from the fact that you sell your guns to criminals, terrorists, and wife beaters.

Lol, I sell firearms and ammo out of a retail store legally…

 

[KeiserC]

No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol

Still not a good reason for not running a background check. Family members never commit crimes?

There is no reason for background checks on private sales, They are not necessary it’s the law. Live with it

Purely on a "feasability" note... If the firearm has no 'data trail' how could the authorities ever trace the 'tranferer' & 'tranferee'. Obviously we're likely talking about older "heirloom" firearms here... of which there are 'A-Plenty'...

 

[Rustic]

Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime".... (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...

A background check isn't gun registration.

The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to avoid the background check they know they wouldn't pass.

So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.

You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL

 

[Rustic]

The Solution to ALL school shootings is simple and elegant.

Train and certify select teachers at every school who already have CCW permits to carry concealed at schools.
If there are none, train some at every school. I don't think that would be very difficult.

If there isn't money for books, pencils, and paper, then what the fuck makes you think there's money for this bullshit?

The major manufacturers would give a discounted rate at least… I assure you, I would sell firearms at cost to teachers/Officials

 

[kaz]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

For a supposed Indian, it's hysterical how afraid of guns you are.

If you lived in the olden days, they'd have just had you stay with the women when they hunted so the women could protect you

 

[Rustic]

Wrong.. on first assertion... (O and the 2nd assertion)

Background checks are not cataloged and saved. So you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Have traded hunting rifles (off the books) with VT state troopers.

So what? Cops don't break the law? Cops don't beat their wives? LOL.

I also buy guns frequently from FFL dealers and go through the NICS data base.... (wrong on the 3rd assertion as well...)

OK, what does that have to do with not submitting to a background check? Nothing. So you've shit out two non-sequiturs and one point that was completely wrong.

On your first - only a fool trusts the federal government.

It is the law of the land you don’t have to do a background check or private sales. Live with it

You have lost the debate

 

[kaz]

Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime".... (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...

A background check isn't gun registration.

The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to avoid the background check they know they wouldn't pass.

So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.

You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL

I'd be OK with background checks if they did two things:

1) Arrest the people who fail them for attempting to buy a gun illegally. They serve no purpose now

2) Make it illegal to record that a background check was performed to protect the privacy of gun owners

 

[kaz]

Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Lakhota has a lot more evidence than Elizabeth Warren of his Indian ancestory. Have you seen the home video passed down to him?

 

[Rustic]

Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime".... (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...

A background check isn't gun registration.

The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to avoid the background check they know they wouldn't pass.

So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.

You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL

I'd be OK with background checks if they did two things:

1) Arrest the people who fail them for attempting to buy a gun illegally. They serve no purpose now

2) Make it illegal to record that a background check was performed to protect the privacy of gun owners

But you know progressives would never compromise/bargain on anything when it comes to firearms it is not in their blood.
Anything short of all out confiscation will not appeal to any one of them.

 

[Rustic]

Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Lakhota has a lot more evidence than Elizabeth Warren of his Indian ancestory. Have you seen the home video passed down to him?

...And it seems he cannot stay out of the firewater.
Washington redskin(lakhota) Has sucked off the government tit all his life

 

[kaz]

Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime".... (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...

A background check isn't gun registration.

The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to avoid the background check they know they wouldn't pass.

So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.

You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL

I'd be OK with background checks if they did two things:

1) Arrest the people who fail them for attempting to buy a gun illegally. They serve no purpose now

2) Make it illegal to record that a background check was performed to protect the privacy of gun owners

But you know progressives would never compromise/bargain on anything when it comes to firearms it is not in their blood.
Anything short of all out confiscation will not appeal to any one of them.

Leftists don't compromise on anything, they need to be defeated

 

[kaz]

Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Lakhota has a lot more evidence than Elizabeth Warren of his Indian ancestory. Have you seen the home video passed down to him?

...And it seems he cannot stay out of the firewater.
Washington redskin(lakhota) Has sucked off the government tit all his life

Well, he did go to college where he celebrated his heritage with his friend, who's also a native American

 

[KeiserC]

Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined (in many cases), by whom & where the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?

As "has been established on this blog" going through a NICS check "is not gun registration"... So.... Is Govt. 'Clairvoyance' what we should be talking about...???

I'm just a VT'er from a 'gun luv'n' state so I don't presume to have all the answers, nation wide...

 

[Lakhota]

Why Most Americans Can Buy AR-15s Before They Can Have Their First Beer

Too young to buy a beer - but not an AR-15. Damn, that is really sick. The NRA Rambo mentality must be eliminated from society. Maybe Florida is the turning point. Maybe...

 

[Rustic]

Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined by whom & where the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?

Going through a NICS check "is not gun registration"... So.... Is Govt. 'Clairvoyance' what we should be talking about...???

There’s a real simple way to look at it, firearm ownership is an absolute right, shall not be infringed unless the individual fucks it up for themselves.
That is as simple and black-and-white as it gets...

 

[Rustic]

Why Most Americans Can Buy AR-15s Before They Can Have Their First Beer

Too young to buy a beer - but not an AR-15. Damn, that is really sick. The NRA Rambo mentality must be eliminated from society. Maybe Florida is the turning point. Maybe...

Washington redskin, You should really stay out of the fire water. If you would, you would realize you should know this better than anybody ~ alcohol is far more dangerous than any firearm. See... 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Skull Pilot]

so it's your contention that it takes decades for gun bans to decrease the murder rate?

No, my contention is that your argument is bullshit, your data is cherry-picked, and nothing is sourced.

The sources of the data are listed on the chart

 

[Skull Pilot]

All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.

I agree. I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia

The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit

It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people. Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law. IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone. But they didn't. Innocents were slaughtered as well.

I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.

You do know that those are just ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifles don't you?

The AR 15 so called assault rifle is no different from the Ruger mini 14 Ranch rifle but for some cosmetic differences.

We all now the ultimate goal here is to ban all semiautomatic rifles even though rifles of any kind are used in only about 2% of all murders and mass shootings account for only about 1% of all murder.