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

[rightwinger]

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.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

---------------------------------- funny comment but also illegal to do that Bulldog .

It's perfectly legal. Individual sales require no paperwork or record keeping. of any kind. If you have the money, you can buy a gun.

--------------------------------------- its illegal to sell a gun to an unknown stranger in a 'face to face' sale Bulldog .

How do you enforce that without some type of registration and background check requirement?

Your gun ends up in the hands of a criminal, you need to be held responsible

 

[iceberg]

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

How else would you define an assault weapon without looking at firing rate?

You want to go on looks?

that's what it comes down to.

a 6 shooter revolver can fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.
an AR15 will fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.

so your "method" now applies to all but bolt action guns.

 

[pismoe]

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.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

Best way for criminals to get guns

------------------------------------- and as I told Bulldog , that action is already ILLEGAL RWinger

ILLEGAL and impossible to prove without mandatory background checks

---------------------------------- and as I said , its ILLEGAL RWinger .

 

[pismoe]

I don't really understand the hoopla . All guns sold at a Legit gun show or 'ffl' store requires a background check to be legal RWinger .

 

[pismoe]

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.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

---------------------------------- funny comment but also illegal to do that Bulldog .

It's perfectly legal. Individual sales require no paperwork or record keeping. of any kind. If you have the money, you can buy a gun.

--------------------------------------- its illegal to sell a gun to an unknown stranger in a 'face to face' sale Bulldog .

How do you enforce that without some type of registration and background check requirement?

Your gun ends up in the hands of a criminal, you need to be held responsible

------------------------------- take the POSSIBLE criminal to court I guess RWinger .

 

[bigrebnc1775]

if you sit down and talk rationally, not END OF TIMES, you'd likely find a lot more cooperation with gun owners.

you = left/anti-gunners in the following:

you can't name a single NRA member who has participated in a mass shooting, yet the left demonizes the NRA. how does that make sense?

you can't come up with laws to regulate an AR and define what characteristics you want banned, supposedly in the name of stopping mass shootings, but you can't equate a single change suggested to stopping any known shooting to date. how does that make sense?

since you can't define the characteristics of what you want banned, you widen the scope of what you want banned/controlled. how does this make sense?

and now we want to simply say PSYCHO and take guns away, bypassing due process and the very foundation of our government / society we've spent 250 years creating. once we find ONE reason to do this, we domino to others and everything we've built will certainly change, but you're giving the gov total control of our lives now and have no recourse because we sacrificed EVERYTHING because you thought it would ONLY apply to what you wanted it to. since that has NEVER historically happened, how does that make sense?

so - i'll ask in return, would you trust someone who won't work to understand YOU but keeps taking things away from you even though you never did anything wrong? given that is how the gun owners see the left (and in fact what they are doing) why should they sit down and talk with you and trust you'll stop where agreed?

you/the left hasn't yet. i strongly recall the whole WE JUST WANT THIS ONE FLAG REMOVED and look how much further that went.

that is a prime example of the rest of our rights domino'ing.

so rest assured i'm way beyond gun control at this point and simply protecting due process, regardless of what they use to come after it as justification.

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

yep. and when brought up i can simply point out a revolver can fire 12 rounds in mere seconds. the answer then is to ban revolvers.

and they wonder why these conversations go astray.

They shoot for one thing when they get that, they go for more until they have it all.

 

[iceberg]

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

yep. and when brought up i can simply point out a revolver can fire 12 rounds in mere seconds. the answer then is to ban revolvers.

and they wonder why these conversations go astray.

They shoot for one thing when they get that, they go for more until they have it all.

they shoot for what they think they want but don't understand it. when facts come up to contradict what they think, the typical reaction is to expand what you're going after, not re-think what you're doing.

 

[pismoe]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

Best way for criminals to get guns

------------------------------------- and as I told Bulldog , that action is already ILLEGAL RWinger

You are wrong

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

 

[pismoe]

ALL these laws that are being pushed will only hurt , intimidate or disarm the USA Taxpayer that owns guns .

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

What about sales that aren't at a gun show. Some stranger sells another stranger a gun with no background check. Hell, they don't even have to know each other's names.

hit the local pawn shop and do the same.

again, you keep coming at me on a point in which we agree.

I'm surprised, but glad to hear that.

now - how are red flag laws NOT violating "due process"

we come and take your guns cause a neighbor said you were dangerous.

that doesn't compare to being arrested for erratic driving, having a day in court, and allowing "due process" to determine what to do from there.

You have your day in court with red flag laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't really understand the hoopla . All guns sold at a Legit gun show or 'ffl' store requires a background check to be legal RWinger .

See #589

 

[rightwinger]

OK

If you want characteristics to define an assault weapon, how about rate of fire and magazine capacity?

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

How else would you define an assault weapon without looking at firing rate?

You want to go on looks?

that's what it comes down to.

a 6 shooter revolver can fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.
an AR15 will fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.

so your "method" now applies to all but bolt action guns.

Firing rate is dependent on trigger resistance and reset as well as how quickly the next round enters the chamber

Now, stop trolling or you will be reported

 

[rightwinger]

course Criminals will break the law same as they have always done RWinger . As example --- See how illegal Drugs are sold all over the USA and then to make thing easy the state starts selling drugs LEGALLY so that they can get the Tax money that the state imposes RWinger .

If you sell a gun to a criminal, you are a criminal

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Puckle gun could fire 9 shots per minute. I'm not seeing much comparison to the rate of fire for modern guns.

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

The Constitution doesn't; the law of the land does.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Like always, you missed the ******* point--that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and still we have the 2nd.

Next.

.

And that brings us back to fully automatic weapons. They are severely regulated yet nothing in the constitution prevents that. Why would it be perfectly legal to regulate fully automatic weapons, but not AR 15s

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

Untrue.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Because AR-15s are NOT fully automatic weapons. They are simi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) exactly the same as probably half the firearms in existence. They are quite common and in general use. Infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms. UnConstitutional. End of story.

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

Nothing is changing. Regulating guns has always been constitutional. Just because we haven't been doing it as much doesn't mean we can't.

Some regulations are Constitutional; some are not. Those that infringe on the Right to bear arms are not.

 

[rightwinger]

The constitution doesn't seem to care how many times you have to pull the trigger. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could point out which clause mentions that.

What it does do is forbid infringement. We tolerate some infringement for now. Try anything and it will backfire. Pun intended.

..

Great. It's been determined that regulation, even to the extent that fully automatic weapons are regulated, is not infringement.

great. we'll start regulating the vote next and the press.

i mean, the left is saying if trump redirects military funds, the left will do the same for their causes so hell, you wanna start regulating "rights" to fit your emotional needs, then its' only fair the right can do the same to match theirs.

but i'm sure for you this is not the same. it never is with you.

Nothing is changing. Regulating guns has always been constitutional. Just because we haven't been doing it as much doesn't mean we can't.

Some regulations are Constitutional; some are not. Those that infringe on the Right to bear arms are not.

Why we have courts

 

[iceberg]

That doesn't make it an assault weapon

trying to take it 1 step at a time. many choose to jump from topic to topic vs trying to come to a consensus on 1 THEN moving on. so i'm going to keep it at firing rate for now but i'm sure he will get frustrated, snark-off and call me the idiot.

The firing rate doesn't make it an assault weapon. It would be dishonest to even make it worth discussing.

How else would you define an assault weapon without looking at firing rate?

You want to go on looks?

that's what it comes down to.

a 6 shooter revolver can fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.
an AR15 will fire just as fast as you can pull the trigger.

so your "method" now applies to all but bolt action guns.

Firing rate is dependent on trigger resistance and reset as well as how quickly the next round enters the chamber

Now, stop trolling or you will be reported

report away son.



look at how fast that bullet enters the chamber...wait...it was ALWAYS in the chamber. once again your own "rules" fall short of reality.

now again - please report me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

In your misguided opinion.

I think a reasonable place for that line is the standard load out of a foot soldier or marine.

If you insist on further diminishing the right, I will insist on motherfucking machine guns to minors.

Or you can stop now. You choose.

.