CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[2aguy]

Well they're sure as shit not made to tickle.

You can dodge the question better than that. Try harder.

It's a trick question

Guns themselves were OBVIOUSLY invented to kill. But that doesn't mean that other uses haven't been found for them.

By the way, the same could be said for nearly every tool invented by man. This internet we are posting on right now was originally designed as a tool to make it easier for our military to coordinate killing our enemies. That is just a fact. We have since found other uses for it, like porn.

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

No....we use actual facts, actual statistics, and actual, real world events....then you guys have nothing to say, and you start making up numbers that have nothing to do with actual gun violence.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

True they oppose that, but felons are ALREADY not allowed to own firearms and making individuals perform back ground checks would not change that at all., plus how would even hope to enforce such a law?

If anyone knows that by selling their weapon to someone without doing a background check they could face weapons charges, it would be self-enforcing.

That's how laws work. Punishment tends to deter some. It won't catch everyone, but it's a common sense law that could prevent some violence. Unfortunately, the NRA places more value on a buck than they do a life.

It wouldn't prevent shit Gary. I just looked at my local FaceBook yardsale sites and there are right now about 50 AR15s for sale by various owners within a 25 mile radius, and I live in a small town. If just one of those people is willing to sell an AR15 to someone that should not have one, then your proposed law has not prevented ANYONE from obtaining a weapon.

You want sensible background checks? Here you go.

EVERY person in the US who wants the ability to buy a gun, of ANY sort, is required to undergo the same back ground check that is currently required to be able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. To be renewed once every 10 years, with systems in place to put a hold on said right for whatever reason the government deems necessary. For example, if you have the bakground check and then the police respond to a domestic disturbance call at your house then your right to buy is temporarily suspended.

Meanwhile, IF you come in contact with police for ANY reason and are found to have so much as a .38 revolver without the proper background check you get 5 years in prison for each weapon in your possession , regardless of the reason you were confronted by police.

THAT is logical gun control. Putting the onus on sellers is stupid and unenforceable.

How do you come by this logic? If 49 people abide by the rules, that's potentially 49 people WITHOUT access to that AR-15. How is that not a good thing?

Why do you love death and misery so much?

And how would you POSSIBLY propose enforcing this law Gary? See your goal isn't to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it is to make it as cumbersome as possible for ANYONE to buy guns b/c your ultimate goal is to ban guns. At least OldLady is honest enough to admit her ultimate aim straight to our face, gotta respect that even if she is misguided.

 

[2aguy]

It's a trick question

Guns themselves were OBVIOUSLY invented to kill. But that doesn't mean that other uses haven't been found for them.

By the way, the same could be said for nearly every tool invented by man. This internet we are posting on right now was originally designed as a tool to make it easier for our military to coordinate killing our enemies. That is just a fact. We have since found other uses for it, like porn.

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

And that is dishonest.........no one here on the 2nd Amendment side of the equation has ever advocated criminals having guns or the dangerously mentally ill....that is you and the anti gunners...lying about our position because facts do not support your position....

 

[2aguy]

Well they're sure as shit not made to tickle.

You can dodge the question better than that. Try harder.

It's a trick question

Guns themselves were OBVIOUSLY invented to kill. But that doesn't mean that other uses haven't been found for them.

By the way, the same could be said for nearly every tool invented by man. This internet we are posting on right now was originally designed as a tool to make it easier for our military to coordinate killing our enemies. That is just a fact. We have since found other uses for it, like porn.

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

Yes, we are....then when you guys bring up a proposal...we point out how it doesn't work, will not stop any criminals or mass shooters from getting guns and then you guys get mad.....and then say things like you just said....because non of your proposals actually do what you say you want them too....

 

[2aguy]

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

Do you even know you are wrong or are you just trolling.......?

 

[hauke]

ok im german.
in germany semiautomatik or automatik weapos are banned.

a german can only have a rifle that is manual loaded from a 3 load. a semiautomatic hand gund is only allowed for sport shooting. you are not allowed to stand your ground, if your in danger you goto run, if your persued you may shoot.
yes your allowed to defend yourself, but your not allowed to commit murder

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You can dodge the question better than that. Try harder.

It's a trick question

Guns themselves were OBVIOUSLY invented to kill. But that doesn't mean that other uses haven't been found for them.

By the way, the same could be said for nearly every tool invented by man. This internet we are posting on right now was originally designed as a tool to make it easier for our military to coordinate killing our enemies. That is just a fact. We have since found other uses for it, like porn.

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

Yes, we are....then when you guys bring up a proposal...we point out how it doesn't work, will not stop any criminals or mass shooters from getting guns and then you guys get mad.....and then say things like you just said....because non of your proposals actually do what you say you want them too....

My proposal on the other hand WOULD work. Of course by work I mean get criminals off the street where they definately can't get guns. Nothing is going to prevent ALL violence.

But no Dem would ever support such a proposal, because throwing every negro who was caught in possession of an illegal firearm in prison for 5 years just for the possession of the firearm would empty out inner cities and thus deprive Dems of that crucial voting block.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

ok im german.
in germany semiautomatik or automatik weapos are banned.

a german can only have a rifle that is manual loaded from a 3 load. a semiautomatic hand gund is only allowed for sport shooting. you are not allowed to stand your ground, if your in danger you goto run, if your persued you may shoot.
yes your allowed to defend yourself, but your not allowed to commit murder

Yes, well Hans there is a very good reason why Germans aren't trusted to own firearms. Actually TWO very good reasons.

 

[hauke]

explenacion, a gun owner was in his house in germany, a buglar was in his house, the homeowner retreated, the burglar attacked, the homeowner defended hinself and killed the burglar. self defense

 

[2aguy]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

Do you know why they fought against background checks on private sales.....because the only way to enforce that is the next step that anti gunners would demand.....registraton of all guns.....that is why the NRA and I and others oppose background checks for private sales....and considering criminals are not using private sales to get their guns...the only reason anti gunners want them is to get to registration of guns.

 

[GaryDog]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

Do you know why they fought against background checks on private sales.....because the only way to enforce that is the next step that anti gunners would demand.....registraton of all guns.....that is why the NRA and I and others oppose background checks for private sales....and considering criminals are not using private sales to get their guns...the only reason anti gunners want them is to get to registration of guns.

We register cars. Why not guns?

"Only criminals wouldn't register cars". Great, another charge to use to bring them to justice. You're against this. Why?

xxxxxxxxx

 

[2aguy]

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

True they oppose that, but felons are ALREADY not allowed to own firearms and making individuals perform back ground checks would not change that at all., plus how would even hope to enforce such a law?

If anyone knows that by selling their weapon to someone without doing a background check they could face weapons charges, it would be self-enforcing.

That's how laws work. Punishment tends to deter some. It won't catch everyone, but it's a common sense law that could prevent some violence. Unfortunately, the NRA places more value on a buck than they do a life.

It wouldn't prevent shit Gary. I just looked at my local FaceBook yardsale sites and there are right now about 50 AR15s for sale by various owners within a 25 mile radius, and I live in a small town. If just one of those people is willing to sell an AR15 to someone that should not have one, then your proposed law has not prevented ANYONE from obtaining a weapon.

You want sensible background checks? Here you go.

EVERY person in the US who wants the ability to buy a gun, of ANY sort, is required to undergo the same back ground check that is currently required to be able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. To be renewed once every 10 years, with systems in place to put a hold on said right for whatever reason the government deems necessary. For example, if you have the bakground check and then the police respond to a domestic disturbance call at your house then your right to buy is temporarily suspended.

Meanwhile, IF you come in contact with police for ANY reason and are found to have so much as a .38 revolver without the proper background check you get 5 years in prison for each weapon in your possession , regardless of the reason you were confronted by police.

THAT is logical gun control. Putting the onus on sellers is stupid and unenforceable.

And I disagree with that....this already exists....if you are stopped with so much as a .38 as a convicted felon...you go to jail right now....

Licensing gun owners to verify a background check does nothing...felons won't do it, can't do it..........and normal people shouldn't have to...if they use a gun for a crime, you can already arrest them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

ok im german.
in germany semiautomatik or automatik weapos are banned.

a german can only have a rifle that is manual loaded from a 3 load. a semiautomatic hand gund is only allowed for sport shooting. you are not allowed to stand your ground, if your in danger you goto run, if your persued you may shoot.
yes your allowed to defend yourself, but your not allowed to commit murder

Yeah. Sorry dude. Move here -- we respect freedom.

 

[2aguy]

LMAO, you proved nothing I said wrong.

You stated:
They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party
Fact:
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
Thus, you're wrong.
Now... did you argue from dishonesty or ignorance?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.

Do you understand now? Or do you need pictures, sweetheart?

A felon can buy a gun by using someone with a clean record..they can do that at a gun store or with a private seller...the only reason for background checks for private sellers.....is to get universal gun registration...there is no other reason to do it.

 

[hauke]

theres nothing worth more then a life, no tv not money, but if someone wants to take your life you should defend yourself, not defend property, defend life

 

[2aguy]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

Do you know why they fought against background checks on private sales.....because the only way to enforce that is the next step that anti gunners would demand.....registraton of all guns.....that is why the NRA and I and others oppose background checks for private sales....and considering criminals are not using private sales to get their guns...the only reason anti gunners want them is to get to registration of guns.

We register cars. Why not guns?

"Only criminals wouldn't register cars". Great, another charge to use to bring them to justice. You're against this. Why?

Nevermind, I've long since stopped reading your idiotic posts.

Guns are a Right....registration has historically been used to round up guns by the government....in Germany, which led to the death camps....and Britain and Australia.......so no...registering guns is not the same as cars.....

Also....any fee attacked to a Right is a violation of the exercise of that Right...democrats used Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting......so again....you can't force gun registration.....

 

[hauke]

i only need 1 shoot to kill, 3 shoots is 2 times more then i need, i can shoot

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

True they oppose that, but felons are ALREADY not allowed to own firearms and making individuals perform back ground checks would not change that at all., plus how would even hope to enforce such a law?

If anyone knows that by selling their weapon to someone without doing a background check they could face weapons charges, it would be self-enforcing.

That's how laws work. Punishment tends to deter some. It won't catch everyone, but it's a common sense law that could prevent some violence. Unfortunately, the NRA places more value on a buck than they do a life.

It wouldn't prevent shit Gary. I just looked at my local FaceBook yardsale sites and there are right now about 50 AR15s for sale by various owners within a 25 mile radius, and I live in a small town. If just one of those people is willing to sell an AR15 to someone that should not have one, then your proposed law has not prevented ANYONE from obtaining a weapon.

You want sensible background checks? Here you go.

EVERY person in the US who wants the ability to buy a gun, of ANY sort, is required to undergo the same back ground check that is currently required to be able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. To be renewed once every 10 years, with systems in place to put a hold on said right for whatever reason the government deems necessary. For example, if you have the bakground check and then the police respond to a domestic disturbance call at your house then your right to buy is temporarily suspended.

Meanwhile, IF you come in contact with police for ANY reason and are found to have so much as a .38 revolver without the proper background check you get 5 years in prison for each weapon in your possession , regardless of the reason you were confronted by police.

THAT is logical gun control. Putting the onus on sellers is stupid and unenforceable.

And I disagree with that....this already exists....if you are stopped with so much as a .38 as a convicted felon...you go to jail right now....

Licensing gun owners to verify a background check does nothing...felons won't do it, can't do it..........and normal people shouldn't have to...if they use a gun for a crime, you can already arrest them.

Well, that is where you are wrong. Requiring extensive background checks DEMONSTRABLY prevented criminals from obtaining automatic weapons in this country. There is verifiable proof of this fact.

Plus, you aren't even considering the system I propose is LESS intrusive than the one we CURRENTLY have. ONE background check every 10 years, that's it (unless of course you present a reason to suspend your right) after which you can walk right into your local gun shop and buy a fully automatic MP5 if you wish. IF you can't pass the background check then you can't even legally own a small revolver, and just the mere POSSESSION of such is a felony.

Gary and his ilk need to start using common sense on this topic, but so you do and yours 2A. Having a system that instantly identifies to police who has a right to own firearms and who doesn't it logical. Much more logical than running a background check everytime you want to purchase a new gun.

 

[hauke]

only americans need semiautomatic battlerifles to shoot.

europeans just need 1 shoot

 

[hauke]

yeah americans can t shoot