“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So which is it this week, snowflakes? Are you sticking to your lie that Democrats are NOT coming for our guns, or have you accepted what Betot revealed publicly?

Not ALL guns

Just guns you can’t be trusted with

and you wonder why i call you a troll. this says NOTHING about the issue and is just getting shots in. like i said, i get into it also, bad me and i'm working on it. but when all you do is this drive-by snarking, what are your real goals in here? snark off, or try to discuss issues like an adult?

It is the issue

AR type weapons with large capacity magazines are the weapon of choice for mass killings. It is becoming obvious that those weapons can no longer be tolerated

Now, stop trolling

So we are going to ban security forces and police from having them, is that it?


The elites that rule over this nation would no longer be able to have their body guards and security protection services have access to carry them? Private security contractors can no longer have them?

What a relief.

Of course not
They are trained and have a sworn role to protect society

Body Guards are trained and certified. Gun owners are not

I have no problem with police and certified security having assault weapons. I have a problem with Adam Lanz having one

How naive.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ask your question.

i did. you chose to hit rather than answer. but hey - if you look back 2 posts you'll see i plainly asked:

"do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?"

so there. your question.

Are you referring to #484 where I clearly answered your question dumb ass?
View attachment 279984

and exactly how does:

"Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post."

answer the question on how you feel about losing due process for a singular gain?

The first word. NOPE.

so you don't see red flag laws as bypassing due process? then as a follow up it would stand to reason you don't see them bypassing due process for "other" issues as they come along.

am i correct in comprehending your overly verbose response?

No. I don't see bypassing due process as something that will happen. I suspect some might want that to happen, but I don't see them succeeding.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

 

[iceberg]

i did. you chose to hit rather than answer. but hey - if you look back 2 posts you'll see i plainly asked:

"do you or do you not see forced gun control and red flags as a huge opening to losing "due process"?"

so there. your question.

Are you referring to #484 where I clearly answered your question dumb ass?
View attachment 279984

and exactly how does:

"Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post."

answer the question on how you feel about losing due process for a singular gain?

The first word. NOPE.

so you don't see red flag laws as bypassing due process? then as a follow up it would stand to reason you don't see them bypassing due process for "other" issues as they come along.

am i correct in comprehending your overly verbose response?

No. I don't see bypassing due process as something that will happen. I suspect some might want that to happen, but I don't see them succeeding.

except that if i come take your guns because a neighbor said you are dangerous, how is that *not* bypassing due process? where is my trial? where is my right to explain myself?

to me this is bypassing due process because the request doesn't launch an investigation or to see if there is merit to it, it means take my guns cause my neighbor is mad at me. so, to me, red flag laws "do" bypass due process. i would be furious with trump or any elected official if they were to do this because they take power, they never give it back.

 

[pismoe]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

 

[BULLDOG]

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

 

[iceberg]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

 

[iceberg]

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

 

[pismoe]

Without legal gun owners, there can be no Militia. Get it now?

This is about lowering the numbers. We will never stop this completely but get wmds out of the general public hands.

If it is about lowering numbers, then why are you going after something which doesn't account for over 99% of all gun murders? Yet calling them WMDs? That is worse than stupid.

**** the founding fathers. I respect the second amendment but they didn’t expect the slippery slop we hav now.

You respect the 2nd Amend., but want to **** the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Got cha.
And the "slippery slope" isn't the presence of guns, it is the violent, desperate, ignorant society your Progressivism has created with no value to human life which has created the slippery slope. You have yet to prove that disarming law-abiding peaceful citizens will have any real impact on crime or violence. I have a better idea: Let's round up all the whackjob leftist idiots in this country and put them in FEMA camps away from normal society first and restore constitutional values to the nation and raise our young in a healthy, moral environment and see if that doesn't work first.

Would you allow everyone to own a weapon that could take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? If not, what’s your cut off? How deadly do you want the average joe to be capable of?

First, tell me where I can buy a weapon that can take out 1000 people with one pull of the trigger? You smoke much drugs?

We just don't want everyone/anyone having that kind of killing power. Like the Vegas Shooter. No one should be able to have that kind of firepower. If AR15's are deemed too much firepower for any tom dick or harry to have, I'll be ok with that. I don't know much about the AR15. Or bump stocks or any of that shit. I hear NYC makes a GAYR 15. Doesn't hold as many rounds. Maybe you can have one of those. LOL.

Yea, **** what the founding fathers said. I mean, I agree with the second amendment but if "the right to bare arms" ends up meaning a rampage a day, something has to be done.

Oh and kiss my ass with that progressivism bullshit. You guys can spin anything and you'll tie the most right wing radical to us and never accept blame for any of the crazies when most of them are on your side. Like the guy who killed the abortion doctor. Bill O'Reilly got him worked up by calling him Tiller the Baby Killer.

If you are referring to abortion, I hardly think that's why these crazy white men are shooting up America. We need to figure out what's making white men so crazy. Hell they're scarier than ISIS.

Why do I have to first tell you where you can get a gun that will kill 1000 people with one pull of the trigger. If the government has one, should every dick like you be able to own one? You guys are really ******* retarded.

except i can do the same with almost any semi-automatic rifle.

what is "retarded" is you can't see that or comprehend it, so you/the left simply widens what you want banned cause you can't define it. it's a pure reactionary move that never works.

we had them banned at one point, DID GUN CRIMES GO DOWN?

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

---------------------------------------------- if hi cap mags and everything else is ok for Police its ok for their taxpaying employers Sealy .

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you referring to #484 where I clearly answered your question dumb ass?
View attachment 279984

and exactly how does:

"Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post."

answer the question on how you feel about losing due process for a singular gain?

The first word. NOPE.

so you don't see red flag laws as bypassing due process? then as a follow up it would stand to reason you don't see them bypassing due process for "other" issues as they come along.

am i correct in comprehending your overly verbose response?

No. I don't see bypassing due process as something that will happen. I suspect some might want that to happen, but I don't see them succeeding.

except that if i come take your guns because a neighbor said you are dangerous, how is that *not* bypassing due process? where is my trial? where is my right to explain myself?

to me this is bypassing due process because the request doesn't launch an investigation or to see if there is merit to it, it means take my guns cause my neighbor is mad at me. so, to me, red flag laws "do" bypass due process. i would be furious with trump or any elected official if they were to do this because they take power, they never give it back.

That is not bypassing due process. That is following the process used to deal with a potential danger. Police use similar steps when an erratic driver is seen on the interstate even if they haven't broken any law.

 

[pismoe]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

------------------------------------ should be no line because as you say or as I say , the line can always be redrawn Iceberg .

 

[iceberg]

and exactly how does:

"Nope. I'm simply pointing out how you are wrong. I'm laughing at the absurd things you post."

answer the question on how you feel about losing due process for a singular gain?

The first word. NOPE.

so you don't see red flag laws as bypassing due process? then as a follow up it would stand to reason you don't see them bypassing due process for "other" issues as they come along.

am i correct in comprehending your overly verbose response?

No. I don't see bypassing due process as something that will happen. I suspect some might want that to happen, but I don't see them succeeding.

except that if i come take your guns because a neighbor said you are dangerous, how is that *not* bypassing due process? where is my trial? where is my right to explain myself?

to me this is bypassing due process because the request doesn't launch an investigation or to see if there is merit to it, it means take my guns cause my neighbor is mad at me. so, to me, red flag laws "do" bypass due process. i would be furious with trump or any elected official if they were to do this because they take power, they never give it back.

That is not bypassing due process. That is following the process used to deal with a potential danger. Police use similar steps when an erratic driver is seen on the interstate even if they haven't broken any law.

they came and took my property and i never had a say in the matter.

if i'm driving erratically then yes, you pull me over and check. but you don't take away my license or car or ability to drive unless found to be guilty of something OF WHICH i will have my day in court to tell my side of the story. i lose nothing until found guilty in court by a judge and telling my story.

that doesn't exist if you just come take my guns w/o cause or reason other than my neighbor says i'm up to no good.

 

[iceberg]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

------------------------------------ should be no line because as you say or as I say , the line can always be redrawn Iceberg .

it's always being redrawn. they banned AR's before and it didn't do a lick of good.

What happened the last time the US banned some semi-automatic guns

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

so - we ban one and other gun use rises. the rest is a mixed bag of cherry picking. my overall concern is when other gun violence rises, we once again address the guns.

not the reason for the violence.

 

[BULLDOG]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

The AR15 is a reasonable place for that line.

 

[BULLDOG]

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

 

[iceberg]

this talk about NUKE's , Drones with Missiles is just silly . Second Amendment is about Small Arms issued and carried by the individual Comat soldier and primarily owned as a hedge against Tyranny . These Small Arms can also be used for other Lawful purposes like self defense ,and all other legal purposes . The RARE 'Black Swan events of Walmart shootings are no reason to mess with Americans RIGHT to effective and efficient Weapons . ----------- Heck , ALL weapons protected by the Second were Weapons of WAR from the very beginning in the USA and weapons of war are what is protected by the Second Sealy .

the whole NUKE argument is stupid. while it does point out "look, weapons CAN be regulated" great. so can voting privlidges. so can speech. so can a lot of things. the question is, where do you draw the line.

since the gun-grabbers can't define an "assault rifle" in a manner that only effects the AR15, they broaden the scope and move the line.

the fight isn't about the AR15 in the end, it's about where the line is drawn.

The AR15 is a reasonable place for that line.

no it is not. it's todays representation of your wishes.

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

this is found from the last assault weapons ban in 1994. other guns are now being used more. if you don't fix the core and keep after the shiny object, then you will in time come after what ever guns are being used next.

re-defining the line yet again.

 

[iceberg]

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

Why wait? We can get some good out of doing it now.

great. implement it AND take steps to fix the process as well. i've already said if you're at a gun show you're around dozens of dealers who can and must do an FFL check on every sale. waive the fee and do it. you're arguing with me now on a point we agree on.

 

[pismoe]

I didn't say it's a cure all. We don't even blink when someone takes a handgun and commits a crime. Par for the course. Shit happens. What are you gonna do. I get that. No one said any of these regulations would be a cure all. But, maybe some of these guys wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns if we did better background checks. And maybe if the Vegas Shooter couldn't get his hands on such powerful weapons, a lot more people would be alive today. We can't let every man and woman in America have the kind of power a soldier has. Name one other country that does this? And we have more citizens die every year from gun violence than probably every other country combined.

P.S. There hasn't been a mass shooting in a couple weeks. This will die down and we will not pass any legislation. Don't worry about it. I'm just telling you what should happen. Better background checks and only 10 rounds in your mag pal.

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

------------------------------------------ sounds like the State or GOVERNMENT does a pretty Bad job of doing background checks eh . Give the State more power over citizens and the State will just contine doing more bad job until you guys give them even MORE Power .

 

[iceberg]

the fact we don't blink where far more of the problem shows itself is quite telling on us as a whole. we focus on the big bright nasty things out there and react.

not think. react. 2 very different approaches with vastly different outcomes. but thinking takes time and usually requires putting emotion aside. putting emotion aside isn't easy these days. for any of us.

i'm all for better background checks. and while i don't see the "gun show loophole" as a huge issue, i also don't have much of a problem closing it. but will we enforce this new law or simply get mad and pass more if/when it doesn't have the intended results because it wasn't THOUGHT out, just a reaction to a problem?

if you're at a gun show buying from a private individual, great. go to the FFL dealer a booth down and have them run a background check for you. have the gov wave the fee for these one-off sales and now even the $25 isn't the issue.

but to date, our background checks have let a lot of shit through it should not have. fix that THEN put more people through it. this false sense of security given when reactionary laws are passed is why we keep demanding MORE laws. that request to me is a sign you don't want to think about it, just SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

We need background checks on ALL gun purchases including private transactions

Why not just background-check all gun purchasers instead?

.

Great idea.

yep. but first fix the background check system. several shooters, the orlando one for example, passed a background check and never should have. doesn't do much good to put people through a busted process and feel warm and protected because of it.

------------------------------------------ sounds like the State or GOVERNMENT does a pretty Bad job of doing background checks eh . Give the State more power over citizens and the State will just contine doing more bad job until you guys give them even MORE Power .

yep. i'm all for doing more background checks but i want to focus on known problems and present solutions to fix known issues. making more people go through a broken process doesn't make sense to me.

fix it THEN put more through it.

 

[BULLDOG]

The first word. NOPE.

so you don't see red flag laws as bypassing due process? then as a follow up it would stand to reason you don't see them bypassing due process for "other" issues as they come along.

am i correct in comprehending your overly verbose response?

No. I don't see bypassing due process as something that will happen. I suspect some might want that to happen, but I don't see them succeeding.

except that if i come take your guns because a neighbor said you are dangerous, how is that *not* bypassing due process? where is my trial? where is my right to explain myself?

to me this is bypassing due process because the request doesn't launch an investigation or to see if there is merit to it, it means take my guns cause my neighbor is mad at me. so, to me, red flag laws "do" bypass due process. i would be furious with trump or any elected official if they were to do this because they take power, they never give it back.

That is not bypassing due process. That is following the process used to deal with a potential danger. Police use similar steps when an erratic driver is seen on the interstate even if they haven't broken any law.

they came and took my property and i never had a say in the matter.

if i'm driving erratically then yes, you pull me over and check. but you don't take away my license or car or ability to drive unless found to be guilty of something OF WHICH i will have my day in court to tell my side of the story. i lose nothing until found guilty in court by a judge and telling my story.

that doesn't exist if you just come take my guns w/o cause or reason other than my neighbor says i'm up to no good.

Lots of people arrested for driving erratically.