They Don't Care Who Has A Gun

[Uncensored2008]

Not necessarily. No court has ever provided definitive guidance on this question. Most likely and either/or law would satisfy constitutional requirements. A ban on open carry would be okay as long as conceal carry is unobstructed.

I disagree.

A law against concealment would probably survive a legitimate Constitutional test, but prohibition of open carry is a blatant violation of "bearing arms."

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Nothing,freedom is like that. whats going to stop a bad guy from buy from a bad guy? back ground checks?

Who said it would be 100% effective? Is that what your gauge is? Outlawing murder does not prevent some people from killing others, so lets just forget about that law. Is that what you are saying?

 

[The Rabbi]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

so there shouldn't be any laws because some bad guys do bad things?

okie dokie.

Uh? Typical response from the retarded poseur of this board.
If a law is ineffective at its purpose it shouldnt exist.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Care to articulate just how the NRA supports illegal gun sales?

Who said anything about illegal gun sales? It's perfectly legal for a thug to buy a gun from a private seller, and the NRA's actions are assuring that ability for them.

 

[The Rabbi]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Nothing,freedom is like that. whats going to stop a bad guy from buy from a bad guy? back ground checks?

Who said it would be 100% effective? Is that what your gauge is? Outlawing murder does not prevent some people from killing others, so lets just forget about that law. Is that what you are saying?

That argument has been debunked about a gazillion times.
Murder is forbidden because it is forbidden. Because murder is in itself a bad thing.
Carrying a gun is not in itself a bad thing. People want to regulate it as a way to decrease crime. So the two are not comparable.

 

[The Rabbi]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Care to articulate just how the NRA supports illegal gun sales?

Who said anything about illegal gun sales? It's perfectly legal for a thug to buy a gun from a private seller, and the NRA's actions are assuring that ability for them.

No it is not legal. A prohibited person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, period.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.

 

[Uncensored2008]

you have the right to self-defense. that does not mean an unlimited right to arm yourself to the teeth because you live in fear.

it does, however, mean, that self-defense is NOT shooting someone in the back as they're fleeing or staling them because you're rabid.

The problem you have is something called "the Constitution." I realize, as does the rest of the forum, that you have utterly no grasp of concepts of law, but your rabid partisanship coupled with gross ignorance still does not negate the facts of the law of the land. You seek to repeal civil rights, but the courts may not be a reliable venue. It's unlikely that Obama will be able to replace the supporters of the Constitution on the SCOTUS. All he has done so far is replace two leftists with two other leftists. 5 Justices still support the Constitution. The next to go will be that shriveled Marxist twat Ginsburg - and it will be literally impossible to find anyone more hostile to the Constitution than her. So the dream of the left to repeal the Bill of Rights will not be realized under Obama. At this point, I don't see your shameful party retaining the Presidency in 2016, so it may be a generation until you can revoke civil rights from the citizenry at large.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

so there shouldn't be any laws because some bad guys do bad things?

okie dokie.

Uh? Typical response from the retarded poseur of this board.
If a law is ineffective at its purpose it shouldnt exist.

I still gotta ask about your thoughts on rape or murder. Obviously, those laws aren't 100% effective, so should we just take them off the books?

 

[chikenwing]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Care to articulate just how the NRA supports illegal gun sales?

Who said anything about illegal gun sales? It's perfectly legal for a thug to buy a gun from a private seller, and the NRA's actions are assuring that ability for them.

You did,you postulated about a criminal committing more crimes.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Comrade Shitferbrains;

Can you show even a single instance of a person with a CC permit EVER, even once?

No?

You know why that is? You're a lying scumbag and a demagogue.

We're not discussing CC. We're discussing what the NRA stands for. They would prefer to do away with CC and allow open carry across the board.
Texas considers allowing open carry of handguns

The consideration for open carry in Texas has nothing to do with the NRA. So using that as an example is blatantly dishonest. But coming from a liberal, it's expected.

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Nothing,freedom is like that. whats going to stop a bad guy from buy from a bad guy? back ground checks?

Who said it would be 100% effective? Is that what your gauge is? Outlawing murder does not prevent some people from killing others, so lets just forget about that law. Is that what you are saying?

That argument has been debunked about a gazillion times.
Murder is forbidden because it is forbidden. Because murder is in itself a bad thing.
Carrying a gun is not in itself a bad thing. People want to regulate it as a way to decrease crime. So the two are not comparable.

Got it. You don't think a thug with a record carrying a gun is a bad thing. Thanks for pointing out that difference.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, mills,. lathes, and the like are more and more common in home shops. Heck, you can get them-new-for under $700. People aren't machining their own receivers because it's just easier to buy one.

Of course...you can buy an "80% lower" for under $50 and finish it yourself.

Communists seek to crush civil rights. But democrats are stupid, what they do fails every time it's tried.


Bulldog dreams of the old USSR, but it will never happen. The technology that the authoritarians praise for tracking and monitoring the subjects, also makes it impossible to keep arms from the enslaved populace.

you don't have any right to unfettered ownership of weapons.

but thanks.

I do however have the right to reproductive choice.

you wingers really need to get your law straight.

Only a prog would deny a right clearly stated in the constitution and back up one not even mentioned in the document.

I guess consistency is beyond your mental acumen.

 

[chikenwing]

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

so there shouldn't be any laws because some bad guys do bad things?

okie dokie.

Uh? Typical response from the retarded poseur of this board.
If a law is ineffective at its purpose it shouldnt exist.

I still gotta ask about your thoughts on rape or murder. Obviously, those laws aren't 100% effective, so should we just take them off the books?

What,who said that besides you?

You do understand what a free nation is about right?

Your one of those thought police type? trying to prevent something that might happen at the expense of others rights,it doesn't work that way,well it shouldn't.

How is a universal back ground check going prevent a criminal from buy a gun,other than from a dealer,which they don't do.

 

[chikenwing]

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Nothing,freedom is like that. whats going to stop a bad guy from buy from a bad guy? back ground checks?

Who said it would be 100% effective? Is that what your gauge is? Outlawing murder does not prevent some people from killing others, so lets just forget about that law. Is that what you are saying?

That argument has been debunked about a gazillion times.
Murder is forbidden because it is forbidden. Because murder is in itself a bad thing.
Carrying a gun is not in itself a bad thing. People want to regulate it as a way to decrease crime. So the two are not comparable.

Got it. You don't think a thug with a record carrying a gun is a bad thing. Thanks for pointing out that difference.

You don't got shit, once again projecting,and wrong

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Care to articulate just how the NRA supports illegal gun sales?

Who said anything about illegal gun sales? It's perfectly legal for a thug to buy a gun from a private seller, and the NRA's actions are assuring that ability for them.

No it is not legal. A prohibited person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, period.

Great, now we are getting somewhere. How exactly is a person selling a gun supposed to know if that person is prohibited? Do we just depend on the prohibited person being honest enough to tell the seller?

 

[chikenwing]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.[/QUOTE

Bad guys buy where?? think MAN THINK

 

[Uncensored2008]

Great, now we are getting somewhere. How exactly is a person selling a gun supposed to know if that person is prohibited? Do we just depend on the prohibited person being honest enough to tell the seller?

Comrade. how does a printer, printing a gun know that the person is prohibited?

Will the GLORIOUS PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY demand background checks and waiting periods to buy 3D printers?

 

[BULLDOG]

you have the right to self-defense. that does not mean an unlimited right to arm yourself to the teeth because you live in fear.

it does, however, mean, that self-defense is NOT shooting someone in the back as they're fleeing or staling them because you're rabid.

The problem you have is something called "the Constitution." I realize, as does the rest of the forum, that you have utterly no grasp of concepts of law, but your rabid partisanship coupled with gross ignorance still does not negate the facts of the law of the land. You seek to repeal civil rights, but the courts may not be a reliable venue. It's unlikely that Obama will be able to replace the supporters of the Constitution on the SCOTUS. All he has done so far is replace two leftists with two other leftists. 5 Justices still support the Constitution. The next to go will be that shriveled Marxist twat Ginsburg - and it will be literally impossible to find anyone more hostile to the Constitution than her. So the dream of the left to repeal the Bill of Rights will not be realized under Obama. At this point, I don't see your shameful party retaining the Presidency in 2016, so it may be a generation until you can revoke civil rights from the citizenry at large.

Wow....I didn't know my party was really trying to do away with the Constitution. WHAT A SHOCK!! Please give me a credible link to that, and I will change my party immediately. Sorry, but I will require a credible link before I make such a drastic change, I won't accept some link from brain dead idiots like WND, or FOX who pull their crazy ideas out of their ass, but any credible source will do.

 

[chikenwing]

His good guy statues as you put it,goes away just like for everyone else,when he commits a crime,he is convicted,doesn't get his guns back.

This is easy stuf for rational people,not so much for the emotionally crippled.

I'm glad to hear it works out like that, but I just have one question. What's to stop him from buying more guns from a private seller? The NRA is on the forefront when it comes to guaranteeing his ability to do that.

Care to articulate just how the NRA supports illegal gun sales?

Who said anything about illegal gun sales? It's perfectly legal for a thug to buy a gun from a private seller, and the NRA's actions are assuring that ability for them.

No it is not legal. A prohibited person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, period.

Great, now we are getting somewhere. How exactly is a person selling a gun supposed to know if that person is prohibited? Do we just depend on the prohibited person being honest enough to tell the seller?

They won't nor would they care,bad guys don't go to wally world to by guns.You do understand that right?

you do understand that life in a free system has risk right? and if you strive to eliminate said risk,you eliminate said freedoms,you do undsrtatnd that right?