CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

[flacaltenn]

This thread is closed. Just scanning it I found Warning material for about 4 of you in this thread.

We are not gonna tolerate this in the CDZ. Warnings WILL be issued for each and EVERY violation in this thread.
RESPECT THE ZONE !!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

bump...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right. Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.

It all sounds good until you step back and take in the overall big picture of the federali's various wars on this and that.

How is the War on Poverty going? We still have a lot of poverty, do we not?

How is the war on drugs going? Hell, the Federalis have thrown in the towel on that and are only hoping to influence who will win the Drug Lord Wars in Mehico so tha tthe less violent ones are smugling drugs intot he USA.

How is the war on ISIS going?

How is the war on human trafficking going?

How is the war on (fill in the blank) going?

The Federalis and their political minions gin up the minds of people that laws have to be passed to stop XYZ and then they pass massive legislation that few of them actually bother to read to wage 'war' on whatever problem they have made up, and usually the Federali efforts only make things worse, like they have done with Heroin. Current prescription Opioids are far more addictive than street heroin, and yet Big Pharma has the cheaper street heroin illegal while they addict the entire country with shit that will literally kill your mind.

You sure you want the Federalis to wage a War on Gun Crime? Sounds like you want the nation drowning in its own blood.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When half the rounds hit the ceiling you ain't going to be killing too many people

Why do Navy Seals and other spec op units equip their men with fully automatic M4s? D'oh.

Navy Seals have had combat training on weapon fire management techniques and ammo conservation, unlike street thugs who really dont know how to use a full automatic rifle and waste 90% of their ammo. And even then, most of the time that men are killed in combat in a firefight it is when they have run out of ammo and cant shoot back and become sitting ducks.

 

[Iceweasel]

No one cares if you consider yourself "civil." No one claims we should ban guns or cars. Do you just not bother to read people's posts? That makes this process difficult.

Cars are regulated heavily. Guns should be, too. That's my point. Nothing would stop you from sleeping with your "precious" at night if you want to. And I'm not here issuing edicts, I'm here exchanging ideas just like you.

How are guns not regulated? You're just here to discuss things and then throw puerile insults around? I don't want to sleep with my guns and I honestly don't care how you feel about them. My safety is more important to me that some random internet user's feelings.

 

[Pete7469]

We have BOTH a cultural problem (as evidence by our sick, irrational love of guns) AND a gun problem in this country. As usual, the answers to these problems are more complicated and nuanced than blockheaded rednecks choose to admit.

XXXX -- Personal Flame - Mod Edit..

There is no gun problem any more than people who really dig classic cars (even if you're programmed to hate those people because of their carbon footprints) Harley Motor Cycles (even if you're programmed to hate those people because they defend military veterans funerals from hippie protest maggots) or extreme sports enthusiasts (even if you're programmed to hate them because they don't sit on their asses all day watching MSLSD).

There is nothing complicated or "nuanced" about the actual cultural problems that lead to gun violence either. XXXX -- Personal Flame - Mod Edit.. like you encourage people to riot and burn down cities when cops kill thugs. Libturd judges let pieces of shit out of jail scott free after they get busted with a gun, even though they're convicted violent felons with life long histories of being incorrigible.

The greatest problem in this country is the ignorance of libturds. An ignorance which goes so deep it would pierce the center of the universe if it could be quantified on a linear graph.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Federalis and their political minions gin up the minds of people that laws have to be passed to stop XYZ and then they pass massive legislation that few of them actually bother to read to wage 'war' on whatever problem they have made up, and usually the Federali efforts only make things worse, like they have done with Heroin. Current prescription Opioids are far more addictive than street heroin, and yet Big Pharma has the cheaper street heroin illegal while they addict the entire country with shit that will literally kill your mind.

Try revising your remarks so they don't depend on the "making a mountain out of a molehill" (reductio ad absurdum) line of presentation.

 

[320 Years of History]

Bullshit. Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun. Even if they shouldn't have a gun. You call that kind of access to guns.....highly regulated?

You full of shit.

Who do you think should be allowed to own a firearm in America?
Do you think private citizens in America should be allowed to own firearms?

If so, what type of firearms do you think they should be allowed to own?

• Who do you think should be allowed to own a firearm in America?
  • As with many topics, if one asks the wrong question(s), the answer(s) to it (them) doesn't matter. The problem, thus the question to ask, isn't a matter of who should be allowed to own a firearm. The challenge lies in figuring out who should not own them. On a high level, it's not hard to say who should not own guns, but people don't buy guns on a high level; they buy them as individuals. Thus we must have a sufficiently reliable means for making that assessment on a person-by-person basis.
    
    Now it may be that one's response to the question, "How does one determine who is undeserving of the imprimatur to exercise their 2nd Amendment right?", is "I don't know." That's fine and perfectly reasonable, and likely quite honest, as a response. So then the next thing one needs to ask oneself is what to do in the presence of such uncertainty. Does one take or try to take preemptive measures to create a static situation and time period during which one will explore the matter more deeply and then make a decision? Does one allow things to remain as they are while simply one refrains from acting until one has more and better information? Does one make a decision about what to do and hope for the best?
• Do you think private citizens in America should be allowed to own firearms?
  • Some should and others should not be so permitted. The are ample examples of folks who fall under either classification. The goals, which admittedly are competing, are:
    • To allow responsible private citizens who will not abuse their right to own guns to obtain all the guns they want.
    • To make it as hard as possible for likely abusers of guns to get no gun. We know that 100% impossible isn't a realistic target to pursue, but we also know that making it too easy exposes society as a whole to an unacceptable level of risk.
    • To minimize the instances and frequency of gun abuse.
• If so, what type of firearms do you think they should be allowed to own?
  • I don't care what kids of firearms responsible private citizens own. Any and all kids are fine by me.
  • There is no kind of firearm that I think irresponsible private citizens should be allowed to own/possess.

 

[OldLady]

Firearms, generally, pose a public threat. In ANY civil society, when threats are present, we decide as a society where threats are acceptable given the benefit they pose to society. Currently, cars kill 30,000 people per year. Guns kill roughly the same. Yet cars are vital for almost the entire adult population when it comes to transportation, income production, health care, etc.

Guns, conversely, are important for almost nothing among the civilian population. Not food production, not income production (again, talking civilians here) and not even self-defense. The SCOTUS artificially carved out a personal defense measure in the Heller case, but even there Scalia admitted that not all restrictions would be unconstitutional, and not everyone, everywhere, is entitled to carry a gun.

This isn't "nonsense", this is the test the supreme court applies on a case by case basis when it balances state restrictions with citizens' rights. Like it or not.

Your language is extremely revealing. You say "we" as "gun owners" like you're a special class of the population. You are not. (And that includes me, as I am a gun owner, too). You're subject to curtail of your rights for innumerable reasons. That's called reality, kid.

I am civil and don't pose a threat to anyone as long as they don't pose a threat to me. We, as a society, includes everyone, and there are quite a few people who disagree with your stance, so live with it. I am not interested in banning the use of cars any more than I am interested in banning firearms, so I really don't care what your opinions are in that matter.

Then we get to the meat of the argument. Unfortunately you fail to understand that we are not required to agree with your stance on firearms and their role in civil society. The Constitution protects our right to disagree with your opinion, and that's pretty much why they put it there. Whether or not you think it is nonsense, is nonsense, because you don't get to make those decisions. You simply aren't that important, so live with it, or cry yourself to sleep at night if it makes you feel any better.

If you don't care about anyone else's opinion or want to discuss others' opinions on guns, why are you here?

 

[Hiryuu]

If you don't care about anyone else's opinion or want to discuss others' opinions on guns, why are you here?

I basically said I am not interested in banning firearms or cars for that matter. I think that is the problem a lot of people have. I am not here to suit your needs or desires. I am here to represent the obstacles many will face if they attempt to infringe upon our rights.

I can understand some people having the concern that criminals can get their hands on firearms. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution. If for some reason you think you have the right to ambiguously state whatever your opinions are on the matter, and everyone has to fall in line with your desires, sorry, because that isn't what is going to happen. You can discuss all the options you like, and I will continue to point out where they are ineffective or violate our protected liberties.

We can discuss the matters until the cows come home, but finding a solution you are comfortable with is not a requirement I am obligated to offer. Offer something more effective, that doesn't violate our freedoms and I will consider it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I am here to represent the obstacles many will face if they attempt to infringe upon our rights.

That's wonderful, and by all means, I encourage you to do just that...but please do it in a thread aimed at that topic. This thread is about the supply chain for guns and who should and should not be permitted to be a participant or benefactor of that process' existence and operation. The thread isn't about infringing or not on anyone's rights. I'm sure even you don't think "just any ol' nutjob" should be permitted to get hold of a firearm. I certainly don't.

 

[Hiryuu]

Bullshit. Anyone that wants a gun can get a gun. Even if they shouldn't have a gun. You call that kind of access to guns.....highly regulated?

You full of shit.

Who do you think should be allowed to own a firearm in America?
Do you think private citizens in America should be allowed to own firearms?

If so, what type of firearms do you think they should be allowed to own?

• Who do you think should be allowed to own a firearm in America?
  • As with many topics, if one asks the wrong question(s), the answer(s) to it (them) doesn't matter. The problem, thus the question to ask, isn't a matter of who should be allowed to own a firearm. The challenge lies in figuring out who should not own them. On a high level, it's not hard to say who should not own guns, but people don't buy guns on a high level; they buy them as individuals. Thus we must have a sufficiently reliable means for making that assessment on a person-by-person basis.
    
    Now it may be that one's response to the question, "How does one determine who is undeserving of the imprimatur to exercise their 2nd Amendment right?", is "I don't know." That's fine and perfectly reasonable, and likely quite honest, as a response. So then the next thing one needs to ask oneself is what to do in the presence of such uncertainty. Does one take or try to take preemptive measures to create a static situation and time period during which one will explore the matter more deeply and then make a decision? Does one allow things to remain as they are while simply one refrains from acting until one has more and better information? Does one make a decision about what to do and hope for the best?
• Do you think private citizens in America should be allowed to own firearms?
  • Some should and others should not be so permitted. The are ample examples of folks who fall under either classification. The goals, which admittedly are competing, are:
    • To allow responsible private citizens who will not abuse their right to own guns to obtain all the guns they want.
    • To make it as hard as possible for likely abusers of guns to get no gun. We know that 100% impossible isn't a realistic target to pursue, but we also know that making it too easy exposes society as a whole to an unacceptable level of risk.
    • To minimize the instances and frequency of gun abuse.
• If so, what type of firearms do you think they should be allowed to own?
  • I don't care what kids of firearms responsible private citizens own. Any and all kids are fine by me.
  • There is no kind of firearm that I think irresponsible private citizens should be allowed to own/possess.

Thank you for your input. I was wondering, as I often do, what the motivations of people who start these threads are. Instead of guessing intent or the way people really feel, I have the tendency to ask them. When I ask people if they think American citizens should be allowed to own firearms, it requires them to answer a question that many want to avoid. So often we hear people going on and on about how no one wants to take our firearms away, when in fact, nothing would make them happier.

It is easier when we just get that understanding out of the way, because it influences the argument. A lot of people assume they are compromising when they don't get everything they want, but that really doesn't address the idea that firearms are a protected right. I am not of the same mind you are on the matter but I understand your concerns, thanks again.

 

[Hiryuu]

That's wonderful, and by all means, I encourage you to do just that...but please do it in a thread aimed at that topic. This thread is about the supply chain for guns and who should and should not be permitted to be a participant or benefactor of that process' existence and operation. The thread isn't about infringing or not on anyone's rights. I'm sure even you don't think "just any ol' nutjob" should be permitted to get hold of a firearm. I certainly don't.

That's exactly what the thread is about, you discussing who should or shouldn't be able to exercise their Constitutional rights. It doesn't matter if you think it makes sense, nor if I do for that matter. If the Constitution needs to be changed (in your opinion), instead of slowly eroding our protected rights into nothing, then change it.

Instead, people keep trying to weasel their way around the idea of putting it before the people in a vote. They try to legislate from the bench, or chip away at the rights through legislation that is contradictive to a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[320 Years of History]

Thank you for your input. I was wondering, as I often do, what the motivations of people who start these threads are. Instead of guessing intent or the way people really feel, I have the tendency to ask them.

That's a fair and sane approach. Sadly, a lot of folks are unwilling to directly answer the "non-loaded" questions they are asked.

I would amend the second sentence above as follows, "....guessing or postulating others' intent....

FWIW, and to amplify my earlier remark (not quoted in this post), this thread is about the gun supply chain, not gun ownership or gun use. Thus, as noted in the title, the topic is who gets to buy guns, not who can own or possess them.

You might be wondering why I'm focused strictly on the supply chain and its participants. The answer is that, as with all processes, events happen in sequence. Before I can worry about who gets hold of a gun, I have to be sure that "upstanding" folks are the only ones who buy them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Before I can worry about who gets hold of a gun, I have to be sure that "upstanding" folks are the only ones who buy them.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about “the right of 01470145upstanding’ folks”. It speaks of “the right of the people”. That means every free, adult, American citizen. Everyone who is not currently confined to prison or a mental hospital, and who is not under any such condition as probation or parole. It even includes those that you might judge to not be “‘upstanding’ folks”.

 

[320 Years of History]

Before I can worry about who gets hold of a gun, I have to be sure that "upstanding" folks are the only ones who buy them.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about “the right of 01470145upstanding’ folks”. It speaks of “the right of the people”. That means every free, adult, American citizen. Everyone who is not currently confined to prison or a mental hospital, and who is not under any such condition as probation or parole. It even includes those that you might judge to not be “‘upstanding’ folks”.

Yes, well, you keep that in mind while you review the founders' writings looking for remarks that indicate they intended, or at least were acquiescent about, "the people" who aren't "upstanding" enough not to abuse the fact that they have a 2nd Amendment right "flipping out" and using the object acquired via that right to kill other citizens.

 

[2aguy]

Before I can worry about who gets hold of a gun, I have to be sure that "upstanding" folks are the only ones who buy them.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about “the right of 01470145upstanding’ folks”. It speaks of “the right of the people”. That means every free, adult, American citizen. Everyone who is not currently confined to prison or a mental hospital, and who is not under any such condition as probation or parole. It even includes those that you might judge to not be “‘upstanding’ folks”.

Yes, well, you keep that in mind while you review the founders' writings looking for remarks that indicate they intended, or at least were acquiescent about, "the people" who aren't "upstanding" enough not to abuse the fact that they have a 2nd Amendment right "flipping out" and using the object acquired via that right to kill other citizens.

They didn't want the government oppressing the people...had they been able to see the mass murders committed by governments against their peoples in the future, they would not have just protected the right to bear arms, but would have mandated that every home have the best small arms available....and disarmed the government......

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, well, you keep that in mind while you review the founders' writings looking for remarks that indicate they intended, or at least were acquiescent about, "the people" who aren't "upstanding" enough not to abuse the fact that they have a 2nd Amendment right "flipping out" and using the object acquired via that right to kill other citizens.

Back then, criminals of that sort were dealt with in an appropriate manner, which rendered moot any discussion of whether or not they should be allowed their Second Amendment rights, or any other rights.

For any crime serious enough to cast doubt on whether the offender should be allowed such rights, the sentence was usually served at the end of a rope.

 

[320 Years of History]

Back then, criminals of that sort were dealt with in an appropriate manner

In every age, criminals were and have been dealt with "in an appropriate manner."

Save the ambiguous bromides for someone other than me.

For any crime serious enough to cast doubt on whether the offender should be allowed such rights, the sentence was usually served at the end of a rope.

Is execution the "appropriate manner" of punishment that you'd stipulate for all crimes that "cast doubt on whether the offender should be allowed" to exercise their 2nd Amendment right?

 

[yiostheoy]

bump...

Thanks flacaltenn .