Gun owner paranoia---

[RetiredGySgt]

50 percent of all murders are committed by blacks mostly in the hoods. 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks.

So you say.
Can you show us?
Got sourcing?

And, poster Retired, are you all in on the offered stat of "95%"?

I have routinely li ked to the fbi status in the past, you can find it there.

You retired with three lousy stripes? I made E5 in ten months.

gysgt is e7 retard

Well, he's presenting three stripes.

Btw, retiring as an SFC is hardly anything to boast about.

actually before the wars the average rank a marine retired at was ssgt. and I retired at 16 years medically.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

50 percent of all murders are committed by blacks mostly in the hoods. 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks.

So you say.
Can you show us?
Got sourcing?

And, poster Retired, are you all in on the offered stat of "95%"?

I have routinely li ked to the fbi status in the past, you can find it there.

You retired with three lousy stripes? I made E5 in ten months.

gysgt is e7 retard

Well, he's presenting three stripes.

Btw, retiring as an SFC is hardly anything to boast about.

actually before the wars the average rank a marine retired at was ssgt. and I retired at 16 years medically.

Thank you for your service.

Sorry for the hit. I was taught to strike first if you sense it coming (sometimes it ends right there).

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't chat about legal matters with gun enthusiasts, but have long heard variations on the "Big Blue Meanies are coming to take my precious away!" hysteria that makes me want to comfort them with the reality that there is no serious legislative initiative anywhere to revoke their 2nd Amendment rights.

Then maybe you should read the news more often and Biden's website. Yes, they do want to take guns away. First off is they want to remove liability protection from gun manufacturers and sellers. Biden also wants to make it illegal to buy guns, parts, or ammo off the internet. So once they sue all gun outlets out of business, there will be no place to get guns from.

Secondly is they want to require all gun owners to get a federal gun permit. To get the permit, you need to have a psychological evaluation done that will cost you $800.00. If they pass that into law, you can bet your ass the only shrinks they will allow to do the evaluations are leftist anti-gunners, and they will give very few the permit to get that federal license. Part of the process is to interview the spouse, the ex-spouse if you have one, all the members of the household, and even neighbors.

But no........the commies don't want to take our guns. It's just unwarranted hysteria.

 

[marvin martian]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

The Democrats have done nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It's the exact opposite, actually. Hence the MASSIVE firearm homicide rates in shithole cities run by Democrats (Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, LA, Baltimore, New Orleans, Atlanta, etc.)

 

[Flash]

95% of the 'gun crimes' in the US are caused by negro gang bangers.
Start by taking away their illegal guns.

We tell these stupid uneducated Moon Bats that every time this discussion comes up but they all have peanut butter in their ears and never seem to hear us.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since the delay I mentioned usually is about a month or so, that makes sense.

I think the funniest thing about the progressive resistance to Keystone is that the oil will be transported one way or another. If the pipeline doesn't achieve it, then trains will.

Trains are, of course, less environmentally safe than a pipeline, but environmentalists are usually pretty bad at risk assessment in general.

It doesn't take very long for prices to change. In the commodities market, there is a group of fund managers. Fund management is a controlled account. You don't get to choose how to invest. Fund managers get small time investors, pool their money, and put that money on various commodities. When these tens of millions of dollars go one way, the price changes immediately.

Let's say your gas station is selling gas for $2.10. They bought the gasoline at $1.95 a gallon. When the prices go up to $2.50, they still have that gasoline in the ground they bought for $1.90. It doesn't matter. When the price of gasoline changes, they change the prices that day. It's all based on what the commodities market is doing at the moment.

It also works the other way around. If the gasoline they have in the ground cost them $2.40 per gallon, and the price drops to $2.20 a gallon, they change their price that day even though it's technically a loss.

Okay, so how do they make money sometimes and lose other times? It's an investment strategy known as hedging. It's a bit complicated to explain, but in short, they arrange their investments so they actually bet against themselves. In doing so, they are able to make the same profit whether the price for gasoline is $1.90, or if the price goes up to $3.00. They make the same 15 cents per gallon profit no matter what.

 

[Flash]

I get it, a gunny but you're presenting three stripes.

Btw, retiring as an SFC is hardly anything to boast about. Get busted?

I bet the greater majority of Enlisted of all branches retire as an E-7.

You pretty well have to make a commitment to serve pass 20 years before being considered for E-8. You also have to have the right MOS and there be slots available.

The Marines are also the hardest service to make rank. For instance, is quite common for a Marine to serve his/her three years and leave as an E-3. In the Army just about everybody makes E-4 and a good percentage gets E-5 before ETS.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I get it, a gunny but you're presenting three stripes.

Btw, retiring as an SFC is hardly anything to boast about. Get busted?

I bet the greater majority of Enlisted of all branches retire as an E-7.

You pretty well have to make a commitment to serve pass 20 years before being considered for E-8. You also have to have the right MOS and there be slots available.

The Marines are also the hardest service to make rank. For instance, is quite common for a Marine to serve his/her three years and leave as an E-3. In the Army just about everybody makes E-4 andke a good percentage gets E-5 before ETS.

Fair enough.

I made E5 four months into Chu Lai... surely, you know Chu Lai.

 

[Flash]

I get it, a gunny but you're presenting three stripes.

Btw, retiring as an SFC is hardly anything to boast about. Get busted?

I bet the greater majority of Enlisted of all branches retire as an E-7.

You pretty well have to make a commitment to serve pass 20 years before being considered for E-8. You also have to have the right MOS and there be slots available.

The Marines are also the hardest service to make rank. For instance, is quite common for a Marine to serve his/her three years and leave as an E-3. In the Army just about everybody makes E-4 andke a good percentage gets E-5 before ETS.

Fair enough.

I made E5 four months into Chu Lai... surely, you know Chu Lai.

Yes I know Chu Lai.

I made E-5 with less than two years in. There were slots available.

 

[Auld Phart]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws

and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon as long you behave - too include not showing up in public with your dick hanging out.

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon

AR15s, AK47s, etc are 'cap guns'?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws

and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon as long you behave - too include not showing up in public with your dick hanging out.

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon

AR15s, AK47s, etc are 'cap guns'?

I agree.

They are cap guns.

There is no reason to ban or restrict or license or register ANY of them.

Quit messing with our cap guns.

 

[2aguy]

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

It depends on the regulations employed. Most conservatives are fine with psychological background checks. What people object to are arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, arbitrary limits on semiauto rifles, or red flag laws that are vaguely worded and easily abused.

No....Conservatives are not fine with psychological background checks.....where do you get that?

Psychological background checks will be used to deny ownership to normal people.....sorry, a non-starter.

 

[2aguy]

Any psychological background check will have hazards, no doubt. And I agree that some probably would avoid help given that situation.

As far as the check itself goes, however, it would require reforming HIPAA law to allow for the check to access personal information. The diagnosis of mental illness would not be connected to the background check itself, because, as you said, there is the hazard of political bias. Diagnosis of something like schizophrenia would still be something that would be determined by a person's psychologist -- someone they trust, not a potential political activist type.

All that aside, I disagree with a lot of proposals by Democrats on this issue.

As the late Rush Limbaugh used to say, I know liberals like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body. That being said, I think back to when the left was pushing for gays to be out of the closet. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, they forced their marriage down our throats, and even are able to adopt children.

I remember at a time where everybody smoked. The left asked that it be restricted in movie theaters. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Today, you can't smoke a cigarette in most public places, and in blue states, not even outside in a park or on the beech.

What I'm saying here is that Democrats never stop at point A. Oh, they say that's all they want at the time, but after they reach point A, they proceed to point B, then C, then D...........

Once we agree to psychological background checks or exams, we'll be opening up a new Pandora's Box.

On most things, I agree. I don't see any major hazards with a psychological background check (other than the one you mentioned about people not seeking help) if the criteria is properly devised.

So, the main concern I would have with the criteria is to not make it too broad. Plenty of minor mental illness issues shouldn't affect your ability to own a gun. Even someone with a minor degree of depression should be allowed to have a gun, as long as they haven't tried to commit suicide.

The main mental illnesses that a check should focus on are the ones involving suicidal tendencies or violent tendencies. If the criteria was limited enough to only include extreme cases, then abuse of the check would be unlikely.

Sorry.......you do not understand anti-gun extremists........any mandatory psychological test for gun ownership will be used to deny normal people the Right to own and carry guns.......

We already have plenty of laws that deal with mentally dangerous people and guns.....we don't need a psych test...

 

[2aguy]

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

So what are "sane" gun laws in your opinion? It seems every time I ask an anti-gun leftist, they all seem to have a different answer. Then I ask what will it solve besides disarming law abiding people, and they get real quiet.

Well, some fairly sane laws in DC prevented an absolute disaster on Jan 6th. There are places, times and circumstances in which firearms are inappropriate.

Surely, the US Military is a good judge of what I address. Do they allow carry at all times?

No, the U.S. military is not good at this......

They do not allow soldiers to carry their personal or job related weapons on base when they are not on duty.....

 

[2aguy]

On most things, I agree. I don't see any major hazards with a psychological background check (other than the one you mentioned about people not seeking help) if the criteria is properly devised.

So, the main concern I would have with the criteria is to not make it too broad. Plenty of minor mental illness issues shouldn't affect your ability to own a gun. Even someone with a minor degree of depression should be allowed to have a gun, as long as they haven't tried to commit suicide.

The main mental illnesses that a check should focus on are the ones involving suicidal tendencies or violent tendencies. If the criteria was limited enough to only include extreme cases, then abuse of the check would be unlikely.

Still, we get back to the point of increment strategy. Let's face it, the left wants all law abiding citizens totally disarmed. That's their long term game plan. Psychological checks is just one step of many in reaching that goal of theirs. Now if Democrats had any integrity, any ability to keep their word, that may be a different story. But we have a clear history they won't. If we don't allow them to take step one, then they can't reach step two, and trust me, there will be a step two.

There's an interesting nuance to this. A lot of actual leftists (like Antifa) are pro-gun. They support an unrestricted 2nd Amendment just as much as most of the right. The people pushing gun control the hardest are typically center left elitists. Bloomberg is a good example.

Elitists in general want to disarm the public, because it makes it easier for them to abuse the masses. We've seen how this works in a lot of the world, particularly in Latin America.

So, I agree that a lot of gun control policies have that creeping effect. It's why I'm against things like gun registries. Registries were typically the first step before disarmament and confiscation in countries like Australia and the UK. I believe Canada has a registry as well, and they just banned all semiauto rifles.

So, I can definitely see where you're coming from. I don't feel as wary about a psychological background check with the proper criteria, but yeah, there is the possibility that it would be made too broad in scope.

There isn't the "possibility," it is a sure thing.....psychiatrists and social workers will exploit their position to keep people from owning and carrying guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

orry.......you do not understand anti-gun extremists........any mandatory psychological test for gun ownership will be used to deny normal people the Right to own and carry guns.......

We already have plenty of laws that deal with mentally dangerous people and guns.....we don't need a psych test...

Exactly. Giving government the power to permit us a constitutional right they don't want us to have never works out well for free people.

John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC

After a mountain of paperwork, a $430 fee and waiting for more than 8 months, he was told he didn't demonstrate a need.

www.range365.com

 

[2aguy]

And that's what we are talking about shitlapper, infringement on the 2nd. Constitution doesn't say that, BATFe did. On their own. No input from anyone, no congress, nothing. They just make up their rules. And the ATF CFR book has more than doubled in the last 50 years.

Some folks have an acute gun fetish, and mistakenly derive an unrealistic sense of entitlement from the 2nd Amendment, fancying that they can mince around fondling any sort of man-enhancer anywhere and any time they wish.

Not so. Such unbridled permissiveness is delusional. There is no such carte blanche conferred by any Constitutional Amendment.

Please allow me to quote directly from the legal precedent that is pertinent:

The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is largely derived from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) that ruled

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ​

... In the years since that decision, there’s been a flood of legal challenges to federal and state gun control laws. According to one study, in 94 percent of those cases, courts have found that reasonable gun regulations didn’t violate the Second Amendment. They’ve mostly relied on the Heller Court’s explanation that its ruling shouldn’t “cast doubt” on several longstanding gun restrictions, including bans on gun ownership by certain individuals (like felons), prohibitions on some types of “dangerous and unusual weapons,” limits on carrying firearms in certain public places, and requirements for gun sales.​

​

The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to Own Guns?

Most U.S. citizens have a Second Amendment right to own and carry firearms, but courts have upheld some gun control, including restrictions on some gun owners, certain types of firearms, and carrying guns in certain public places.

www.lawyers.com

​

I hope that you find this documented information helpful. There are many self-serving myths about that are thoroughly bogus.

And you again ignored what Scalia actually said.......

And the democrat party appointed Courts of Appeals judges are ignoring Heller, they are not citing Heller......

That which you ignore...

Scalia...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.



Alito.....
Caetano v Massachusetts...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
------


As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!

Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

If being able to fondle a shooty infuses confidence, why are so many of the gun-dependent so insecure?

If more people are killed by cars than guns, why don't they want to ban cars instead of guns?

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws

and who decides what's 'sane'?

Is banning 'assault weapons' sane?

Over 3 million in civilian hands, and less that 50 have been used to murder in the last 40 years.

Is that 'sane'?

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon as long you behave - too include not showing up in public with your dick hanging out.

I don't give a shit about the cap guns most of you peckerwoods call an assault weapon

AR15s, AK47s, etc are 'cap guns'?

In a single pass over a football field, a mini-gun can lay a round in every square foot of the field. Your sweaty little finger at an ArmaLite manages one round per pull. As an assault weapon, it's a joke. AK-47s are reliable, unless you're trying to hit something in which case, I'd take an M16.

My reference to cap guns targeted little boys with their toys. Firearms of every kinds are serious tools for serious endeavors. If you need to get your rocks off, I suggest an old (like you) John Wayne Film.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

They do ban cars in some areas.

A majority of people in this country want sane gun laws. Those who want a total ban are fringe

So what are "sane" gun laws in your opinion? It seems every time I ask an anti-gun leftist, they all seem to have a different answer. Then I ask what will it solve besides disarming law abiding people, and they get real quiet.

Well, some fairly sane laws in DC prevented an absolute disaster on Jan 6th. There are places, times and circumstances in which firearms are inappropriate.

Surely, the US Military is a good judge of what I address. Do they allow carry at all times?

No, the U.S. military is not good at this......

They do not allow soldiers to carry their personal or job related weapons on base when they are not on duty.....

Your disrespect for the US Military is noted. What's your kill ratio?

 

[schmidlap]

And you again ignored what Scalia actually said.......

To the contrary, I quoted Scalia's applicable words verbatim that contradict various fallacies in denial of government's legitimate role in regulating firearms, as well as citing the applicable wording from the pertinent case:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."​

​

Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.​

​

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

​

​

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry​

any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ​

Obviously, despite the hysteria of some strident advocates for unbridled permissiveness, firearms are not exempt from government regulation - as further affirmed by all the extant statutes concerning them.

Federal Firearms Laws

www.justice.gov

​

Again, anyone wetting their cribs over the prospect of Big Blue Meanies snatching away their precious shooties are victims of paranoia-induced hysteria:

There is no legislative initiative in any of the fifty United States
or at the national level to repeal the Second Amendment.
​

Can government regulate firearms? Legal precedent, multiple such regulations being on the books, and Constitutional authorities concur in answering "yes." It would be absurdly presumptuous of me to contradict that reality.