Feds demand gun store owner turn over customer list. He refuses

[Jarlaxle]

that takes a lot of tools and tooling, do you have a good sturdy drill press or mill ?

i have been thinking of the same thing, one of my recent gun magazines gave a detailed description on what one needs and how to do it, i have all the tools, just need the jigs/tooling.., that costs about $250.00

Are you a criminal? Or are you planning to sell guns to criminals? Can't see why else you'd do that.

it is not illegal to build your own firearm

and it is not illegal for you to not put a serial number on it

...though I recall it IS illegal to sell it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Against tyranny.
The form of government is irrelevant.

His exact words were thus:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." - Sam Adams.

You know that little thing called Shays Rebellion?

You can thank that little blood of tyrants squabble for letting the Federalists win the battle for more powerful federal government.

It was that little bloody exercise that brought George Washington to the convention and the Constitutional re-write formed that thing y'all hate: a strong federal government.

Hate to slap you down again, but his actual words were "(I)n monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." He also insisted that everyone invovled in the rebellion be immediately tossed in jail.

His position was immediately rejected by the General in charge of putting down Shay's Rebellion because he, correctly, pointed out that there weren't enough jails in all of New England to hold them. The legislature responded by granting anyone who participated in the rebellion an opportunity to repent, which was leniency, and John Hancock eventually pardoned almost everyone who participated in it.

I guess that, unequivocally, proves that Adams was wrong.

You can read about it here.

Shays' Rebellion - From Revolution to Constitution

Samuel Adams was a Grade A hothead...he was a pot-stirrer & a rabble-rouser. He was very good at it, but not always rational.

 

[MikeK]

Yes which is why you have so many shootings, because crazy ***** are allowed to buy guns.

Noomi,

The problem in the U.S. is indeed the crazies -- not the guns. I must admit our swollen and grossly mismanaged population is host to an increasingly substantial percentage of dangerous crazies. Also, there are between 200,000,000 and (an estimated) 300,000,000 guns in the hands of American citizens (no one knows for sure). So even if it were possible to strip our population of all guns, which it is not, do you think that would be fair to the sane, law-abiding population?

I will ask you to consider the difference in the way our respective nations originated. America was born in a cloud of rebellious gunsmoke. Without guns in the hands of ordinary citizens there would be no United States. That fact is imbedded in our history and in our national character and it's much too late to do anything about it. Because, like illegal drugs, as long as someone has the cash to pay for guns someone else will make them available.

The most government can do is go through the motions of prohibiting illegal possession and use of drugs and guns. But as long as money talks and someone is listening nothing short of totalitarian rule can eliminate either. And the only crazy who can't get hold of a gun is one who has no money.

There are crazies the world over and somehow principally only those here with access are able to mow down kids to their heart's content.

That might be true. But I'm not aware of many Americans applying to Australia for citizenship. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[candycorn]

Noomi,

The problem in the U.S. is indeed the crazies -- not the guns. I must admit our swollen and grossly mismanaged population is host to an increasingly substantial percentage of dangerous crazies. Also, there are between 200,000,000 and (an estimated) 300,000,000 guns in the hands of American citizens (no one knows for sure). So even if it were possible to strip our population of all guns, which it is not, do you think that would be fair to the sane, law-abiding population?

I will ask you to consider the difference in the way our respective nations originated. America was born in a cloud of rebellious gunsmoke. Without guns in the hands of ordinary citizens there would be no United States. That fact is imbedded in our history and in our national character and it's much too late to do anything about it. Because, like illegal drugs, as long as someone has the cash to pay for guns someone else will make them available.

The most government can do is go through the motions of prohibiting illegal possession and use of drugs and guns. But as long as money talks and someone is listening nothing short of totalitarian rule can eliminate either. And the only crazy who can't get hold of a gun is one who has no money.

There are crazies the world over and somehow principally only those here with access are able to mow down kids to their heart's content.

That might be true. But I'm not aware of many Americans applying to Australia for citizenship. Why do you suppose that is?

Because people are mesmerized by idiotic analogies like that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It can. Who says it can't?

Just about everyone who belives that the constitution protects the right to have an abortion.


Tell me why a state cannot levy a huge tax on voting for the purpose of restricting/limiting the exercise of the right to same.

Er...24th Amendment.

Ah.
So, barring another amendment to the constitution, states can indeed restrict the right to abortion by laying an outlandish tax on it to that effect.

 

[AntiParty]

Feds Demand Owner of Gun Parts Store Turn Over Customer List?but This Former Marine and CEO Is Not Complying | Video | TheBlaze.com

Good! Know your rights and use them!

It's still Fox News......It's almost never real. It's even the worst of the least educated on Fox News, Glen Beck. It doesn't get less educated.

If I actually read this article and can't prove it to be a lie in 3 minutes i'll be surprised.

 

[AntiParty]

30 seconds in. Another post where Fox News repeats what one person states as actual news.

One person made this claim and there is no proof.

The irony is that this person will get better sales, which is the drive of the Uneducated Right today.

 

[Darkwind]

Well I did specify long standing. Sure forced democracies that we create have problems. Can you name some country with long standing voting rights that ever had a revolution?

Iraq had elections on a regular basis the entire time Saadam was in power....like clockwork.

So you can't name one? Everyone knows Saddam was a dictator. Name a country with real long standing voting rights that has ever had a revolution.

You are litterally too dishonest to talk to.

You said elections. You made no qualifiers to that statement, and a tyranny is what we are arguing against.

Again..Iraq had a long standing voting record. You speak as if your voting rights in a democracy are somehow protected. WE are not a democracy. In fact, no county in the world is a democracy.

 

[Darkwind]

Let's see your precious link which explains why the first words of the 2nd Amendment don't apply to a single US gun owner.

Warning:
The following includes big words and broad concepts that you will refuse to understand because your mindless, partisan bigotry won't allow for facts that run contrary to your ill-conceived and unsupportable positions

1: The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

2: The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Thus:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pretty awesome document, eh?

 

[Darkwind]

And thanks to gun owners we have a lot more armed criminals. Sounds like they are part of the problem.

It only seems that way to those who are willfully ignorant of crime statistics over the last two to three decades and their implications relative to gun ownership, let others do their thinking for them, don't grasp the realities of human nature, and are willfully oblivious to the inherent and historic threats to liberty posed by government. In other words, it only seems that way to those who live in bubbles of naiveté and ignorance.

Got pin?

Well 232,000 guns are stolen each year. That's going from a gun owner to a criminal.

So tell Me, now does taking guns away from people who have not had guns stolen from them, have not had a gun of their used in a crime, and have not been involved in a crime, make the world, or the country, safer? These people are not part of your stats....btw....defensive gun use statistics are sound. I realize you refuse to believe that, but then, I think you refuse to think that pink unicorns are myths.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Are you a criminal? Or are you planning to sell guns to criminals? Can't see why else you'd do that.

it is not illegal to build your own firearm

and it is not illegal for you to not put a serial number on it

...though I recall it IS illegal to sell it.

though I recall it IS illegal to sell it

yes unless you put a serial number on it

in most states it then falls under the ATF rules

 

[jon_berzerk]

the latest news on Ares Armor

ATF breaks in and takes records

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gsmlJSpWvk]ATF breaks into Ares Armor in National City our Constitution is under Attack!!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Papawx3]

Yes which is why you have so many shootings, because crazy ***** are allowed to buy guns.

Then we need to outlaw "crazy *****". Let's start with outlawing criminals. Wait.. Criminals are already "outlaws". So how can you outlaw someone who's already an outlaw?

 

[Howey]

he sold illegal parts guys

Proof?

*crickets chirp*

Try reading the news article, dumbass.

 

[Brain357]

Iraq had elections on a regular basis the entire time Saadam was in power....like clockwork.

So you can't name one? Everyone knows Saddam was a dictator. Name a country with real long standing voting rights that has ever had a revolution.

You are litterally too dishonest to talk to.

You said elections. You made no qualifiers to that statement, and a tyranny is what we are arguing against.

Again..Iraq had a long standing voting record. You speak as if your voting rights in a democracy are somehow protected. WE are not a democracy. In fact, no county in the world is a democracy.

You seem to have missed the whole point. The point is a country like the US with voting rights has never gone to tyranny. Even countries that don't have guns all over the place to defend their rights. The only countries named are nothing like the US and don't have long standing voting rights. So you see we don't need guns to defend our rights. Sorry you didn't get it. If you ever think of a country that's a good example let me know, but I don't think one exists.

 

[Brain357]

It only seems that way to those who are willfully ignorant of crime statistics over the last two to three decades and their implications relative to gun ownership, let others do their thinking for them, don't grasp the realities of human nature, and are willfully oblivious to the inherent and historic threats to liberty posed by government. In other words, it only seems that way to those who live in bubbles of naiveté and ignorance.

Got pin?

Well 232,000 guns are stolen each year. That's going from a gun owner to a criminal.

So tell Me, now does taking guns away from people who have not had guns stolen from them, have not had a gun of their used in a crime, and have not been involved in a crime, make the world, or the country, safer? These people are not part of your stats....btw....defensive gun use statistics are sound. I realize you refuse to believe that, but then, I think you refuse to think that pink unicorns are myths.

I wasn't arguing for taking guns away. I was arguing that its dishonest to say they deter crime because they clearly help crime. The argument that they deter crime is constantly used and that helps keep us from putting laws in that would help keep them away from criminals. I think we need more laws to keep them from criminals.

The 108,000 might be sound, the 2.5 million is clearly wrong. And with 108,000 defensive gun uses it's clear guns are doing way more damage than good. Like I mentioned 232,000 guns stolen each year going to criminals. How many mass shootings start with the shooter getting the gun from a family member who legally owns? How many legal gun owners go nuts and shoot somebody like the theater shooters? How many legal gun owners become criminals with that gun?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It only seems that way to those who are willfully ignorant of crime statistics over the last two to three decades and their implications relative to gun ownership, let others do their thinking for them, don't grasp the realities of human nature, and are willfully oblivious to the inherent and historic threats to liberty posed by government. In other words, it only seems that way to those who live in bubbles of naiveté and ignorance.

Got pin?

Well 232,000 guns are stolen each year. That's going from a gun owner to a criminal.

So tell Me, now does taking guns away from people who have not had guns stolen from them, have not had a gun of their used in a crime, and have not been involved in a crime, make the world, or the country, safer?

It makes criminals safer, and the people more dependent on the state.
That, friend, is their goal.

 

[Brain357]

Well 232,000 guns are stolen each year. That's going from a gun owner to a criminal.

So tell Me, now does taking guns away from people who have not had guns stolen from them, have not had a gun of their used in a crime, and have not been involved in a crime, make the world, or the country, safer?

It makes criminals safer, and the people more dependent on the state.
That, friend, is their goal.

That is a special kind of dumb.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well 232,000 guns are stolen each year. That's going from a gun owner to a criminal.

So tell Me, now does taking guns away from people who have not had guns stolen from them, have not had a gun of their used in a crime, and have not been involved in a crime, make the world, or the country, safer? These people are not part of your stats....btw....defensive gun use statistics are sound. I realize you refuse to believe that, but then, I think you refuse to think that pink unicorns are myths.

I wasn't arguing for taking guns away. I was arguing that its dishonest to say they deter crime because they clearly help crime. The argument that they deter crime is constantly used and that helps keep us from putting laws in that would help keep them away from criminals. I think we need more laws to keep them from criminals.

The 108,000 might be sound, the 2.5 million is clearly wrong. And with 108,000 defensive gun uses it's clear guns are doing way more damage than good. Like I mentioned 232,000 guns stolen each year going to criminals. How many mass shootings start with the shooter getting the gun from a family member who legally owns? How many legal gun owners go nuts and shoot somebody like the theater shooters? How many legal gun owners become criminals with that gun?

The scenarios you describe are rare. Inner city thugs make up the lions share of murders committed with firearms.
The way to stop those is a mandatory sentence of say thirty years for a crime committed with a firearm and the death penalty for murders committed with a firearm.
Stop penalizing legal gun owners because they aren't the problem.

 

[Brain357]

So tell Me, now does taking guns away from people who have not had guns stolen from them, have not had a gun of their used in a crime, and have not been involved in a crime, make the world, or the country, safer? These people are not part of your stats....btw....defensive gun use statistics are sound. I realize you refuse to believe that, but then, I think you refuse to think that pink unicorns are myths.

I wasn't arguing for taking guns away. I was arguing that its dishonest to say they deter crime because they clearly help crime. The argument that they deter crime is constantly used and that helps keep us from putting laws in that would help keep them away from criminals. I think we need more laws to keep them from criminals.

The 108,000 might be sound, the 2.5 million is clearly wrong. And with 108,000 defensive gun uses it's clear guns are doing way more damage than good. Like I mentioned 232,000 guns stolen each year going to criminals. How many mass shootings start with the shooter getting the gun from a family member who legally owns? How many legal gun owners go nuts and shoot somebody like the theater shooters? How many legal gun owners become criminals with that gun?

The scenarios you describe are rare. Inner city thugs make up the lions share of murders committed with firearms.
The way to stop those is a mandatory sentence of say thirty years for a crime committed with a firearm and the death penalty for murders committed with a firearm.
Stop penalizing legal gun owners because they aren't the problem.

How many inner city thugs buy a gun legally? They sure aren't the solution. They are keeping us from registering guns, making sure all gun sales have a background check, limiting magazine capacity... Making people get a background check before buying a very dangerous weapon is not penalizing. Any decent person would have no problem with it since it might just save a life. Gun owners are just to selfish to care. They pretend to be so heroic, but they can't wait a little bit to get gun number 20? Very sad.