With the recent shootings in Oregon,

[TheCainer]

I believe it may have been Churchill, that said this and I may be paraphrasing it somewhat:

If you are willing to give up your rights to ensure your safety, soon you will have no rights, nor will you be safe.

Too many of you are too willing to give up your Constitutional rights, because you are caught up in the emotion of the moment, caused by the recent shootings. Once you lose them, you won't get them back. Those rights may not seem to be important to you now, but, as you get older and gain more perspective, their importance may become more apparent.

Keep in mind, that you could go to the Australian model, where the government confiscates all guns. Doesn't that make you feel even the least bit uneasy, that the Federal Government would/could just arbitrarily disarm your nation? Do you really believe that would get rid of all the guns? If not, who would have the remaining guns in this country? Does that make you feel safe? Food for thought....

With no guns in the U.S., do you really believe there would no longer be any mass killings? The Tsarnaev brothers killed 6 and wounded 280 with two pressure cookers in Boston. Are we going to outlaw pressure cookers next? You can NOT legislate crazy out of existance. There will always be individuals out there, that will be unbalanced and want to kill people, whether they are Islamic terrorists or social outcasts, that want to get even with society. Things like the Roseland killings will continue to occur, regardless of what we do to try to prevent them, whether they use guns, bombs or other means. You may not want to accept that, but that is reality.

It wasn't Churchill. It was actually Benjamin Franklin, and the context of what he wrote seems to be somewhat different than what most people seem to think, including you.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/ho...jamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/

 

[qazplm]

Never question how I do my job. Never. You don't know me.

There is a distinct difference between supporting and defending the Constitution, and agreeing with every interpretation of it.

Never think that I give a shit what your opinion of me is. You don't know me, whether you're a retired Naval officer or not. I've been doing this 16 years, and I've met plenty of idiots in my line of work. Suspect you'd be another in a long line.

You are in the Navy instead of the Army though, I mean I can at least judge you on THAT can't I? That just seems self-evident.

 

[qazplm]

Again, I'm talking apples and you switch to oranges. Too predictable.

Yes weapon that cause some damage is totally different from weapon that cause some more damage.

 

[qazplm]

Great. I believe you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, when you got commissioned. It's nice to see how seriously you take that oath. As a retired Naval Officer, I am ashamed that someone wearing that uniform, either doesn't know he took that oath, or takes that oath so lightly. What the Hell is wrong with you?

STFU. No, seriously STFU with this crap.

And if you are going to waste time trying to respond to me defending yourself over this post, same four letters.

 

[Bill4411]

It's funny how you chastisedg me for assuming you were Liberal, based on YOUR comments. Then you ASSUME my comments can be directly attributed to FOX. Seriously?? I've had those views for over 30 years before FOX came into existence. Despite your protestations about being Conservative, I've seen little to support that contention.

The Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution, NOT the NRA.

Yes, because reasonable restrictions equals giving up constitutional rights. Brilliant argument. Yes, because we cannot guarantee that thing X will never ever happen again, we shouldn't take steps that would clearly reduce significantly the chances of thing X happening. Another genius position. Because as we all know, gun/pressure cooker, tomato/tomato.

It's funny how you chastised me for assuming you were Liberal, based on YOUR comments. Then you ASSUME my comments can be directly attributed to FOX. Seriously?? I've had those views for over 30 years before FOX came into existence. Despite your protestations about being Conservative, I've seen little to support that contention.

The Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution, NOT the NRA.

You've rooted me out I'm in a reality a card carrying left wing pinko liberal. Tail gunner Joe and Roy Cohn would admire your work and intensive psychological analysis of me. Again if Ted Cruz gets the nomination he should see if he can reassemble the HUAC committee and I'd recommend you for an investigative position personally. Job well done BigEE.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

You are in the Navy instead of the Army though, I mean I can at least judge you on THAT can't I? That just seems self-evident.

Well, yeah. But to me, that guy just admitted the weakness of his argument when all he can do is question my service. Once you resort to that low of a personal attack - and that's pretty much as low as someone who doesn't know thing one about some one else can go in my opinion - you're pretty much flying the white flag. It's nothing more than intellectual cowardice.

 

[qazplm]

Well, yeah. But to me, that guy just admitted the weakness of his argument when all he can do is question my service. Once you resort to that low of a personal attack - and that's pretty much as low as someone who doesn't know thing one about some one else can go in my opinion - you're pretty much flying the white flag. It's nothing more than intellectual cowardice.

For all he accuses me of it, that's all he does is personally attack folks while pretending to be above it all. At least I'm honest about it, if I don't think your opinion is worth a serious response, I'll substitute a mocking one. I've yet to see a response of his that deserved a serious response. Even GMM every once in awhile came up with a post that merited a serious reply.

But yeah that crap he said to you was reprehensible.

 

[beardownboiler]

No, he's right. You should never have a law if you can't guarantee that law will stop anyone from ignoring it. That's why we don't have laws against murder, rape, theft...after all people ignore it. And we don't have laws about auto registration, because criminals will just ignore it to save the money. We should always remember to have laws that criminals will follow.

I haven't read this entire thread, (because the gun threads are usually nonsense about having the right to fight off a nuclear armed superpower with your home aresenal, etc.) but I can tell you right now that this is the best paragraph in this thread. The absurdity of that idiotic notion needs to be pointed out.

I mean, people breaking laws => no need for laws => no laws => no criminals => no need to have a gun to protect yourself from criminals (just the government, right? *Biggest eyeroll I can muster*). But that notion is lost on some people.

 

[Beeazlebub]

You've rooted me out I'm in a reality a card carrying left wing pinko liberal. Tail gunner Joe and Roy Cohn would admire your work and intensive psychological analysis of me. Again if Ted Cruz gets the nomination he should see if he can reassemble the HUAC committee and I'd recommend you for an investigative position personally. Job well done BigEE.

Even if you were a "card carrying left wing pinko liberal", that would do nothing to either detract or advance your arguments. BigE seems to be incapable of engaging in discussion without using personal attacks, which is generally a sign of a weak position.

When facts do not support your argument, what else is there?

 

[qazplm]

Even if you were a "card carrying left wing pinko liberal", that would do nothing to either detract or advance your arguments. BigE seems to be incapable of engaging in discussion without using personal attacks, which is generally a sign of a weak position.

When facts do not support your argument, what else is there?

Where do you go to get your left wing pinko liberal card? I lost mine and I need to get it renewed anyways.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Where do you go to get your left wing pinko liberal card? I lost mine and I need to get it renewed anyways.

I'd try your nearest university. Academics like me try to turn students into left-wingers by bombarding them with things like facts, evidence, and reason. They'd surely be able to print you a new one.

 

[beardownboiler]

So I own a gun. Or say I run a gun range. I do everything reasonable. I conduct full background checks on all the people who shoot on my range before even allowing them on the premises. I have full trainings required before they can use one of my guns. I even provide body armor to all participants free of charge.

Yet one of my participants goes nuts and shoots three people in the head. I'm responsible now?

Your original post was overly broad IMO. Obviously there is some level of responsibility for gun ownership, but it does not extend to folks who steal their guns, or folks who misuse their guns.

I think that part of what could help to alleviate this concern could be a safe-harbor provision for those who report their guns stolen to the authorities within a short amount of time after the gun goes missing. This way, if the guns are legal and it wasn't merely lent to someone, there is a way to protect those who were responsible (and we can have a presumption of responsibility accompany that reporting).

 

[ecouch]

You are confusing permit with license. So you can have it on your property without a license yes? My point is that you should be required in every state in the land to:

1. Do gun safety
2. Have a rigorous background check
3. Get gun insurance
4. Pass yearly tests
5. Register

That isn't remotely the requirement in the vast majority of states.

What do you mean rigorous background check?

Every state uses the same system so it doesn't vary from state to state as you imply.

You need a valid, state issued photo ID. You fill out the first half of the 4473, the FFL fills out the other half. The FFL calls NICS (maintained in conjunction with the FBI) and runs your name, ssn, dln, etc. They give the thumbs up or down. The 4473 must be kept on file at FFL for 20 years and the BATFE can, and do, show up at any time to look at the records. Which by the way list all the firearms purchased, registration.

This process is the same for both long guns and handguns.

What would change to make it more rigorous?

And what in the world is gun insurance? I've never heard this brought up in this discussion.

 

[qazplm]

What do you mean rigorous background check?

Every state uses the same system so it doesn't vary from state to state as you imply.

You need a valid, state issued photo ID. You fill out the first half of the 4473, the FFL fills out the other half. The FFL calls NICS (maintained in conjunction with the FBI) and runs your name, ssn, dln, etc. They give the thumbs up or down. The 4473 must be kept on file at FFL for 20 years and the BATFE can, and do, show up at any time to look at the records. Which by the way list all the firearms purchased, registration.

This process is the same for both long guns and handguns.

What would change to make it more rigorous?

And what in the world is gun insurance? I've never heard this brought up in this discussion.

No, every state doesn't use the same system. Some states for example (five in total) require universal background checks including private sellers and gunshows.

I would require EVERY sale of EVERY firearm in EVERY circumstance to require a background check. I would insure that every gun that is made is required to be tracked by each purchase. If a gun is used in a crime (or simply seized for some other reason or found) and there is evidence it was sold without being tracked, I would make that a crime punishable by fine or minor jail time for the person who last held it lawfully unless that person can provide proof that it was stolen.

There are considerable loopholes and flaws in the way gun purchases and sales are tracked. I know you know this so a bit perplexed why you are trying to sell it differently.

 

[ecouch]

No, every state doesn't use the same system. Some states for example (five in total) require universal background checks including private sellers and gunshows.

I would require EVERY sale of EVERY firearm in EVERY circumstance to require a background check. I would insure that every gun that is made is required to be tracked by each purchase. If a gun is used in a crime (or simply seized for some other reason or found) and there is evidence it was sold without being tracked, I would make that a crime punishable by fine or minor jail time for the person who last held it lawfully unless that person can provide proof that it was stolen.

There are considerable loopholes and flaws in the way gun purchases and sales are tracked. I know you know this so a bit perplexed why you are trying to sell it differently.

Every state must use the NCIS and 4473s per the Brady Law. The NICS is maintained by the FBI. If you buy a gun from an FFL, it goes through the feds. When I said system I was referring to NICS. Not additional laws for private sales, which again go through NICS.

It seems like you want private sales regulated somehow. I'm okay with that, it will just cost me $25 and I insist on doing now anyway as a CYA measure. I don't know how it will reduce crime, but whatever. There really is no way stop straw purchasing so I don't know how you would prevent private sales not running through an FFL.

Okay so we added private sales going through an FFL. Is that all that would be added to make the background check more rigorous? The check itself is no more rigorous.

 

[Bill4411]

Where do you go to get your left wing pinko liberal card? I lost mine and I need to get it renewed anyways.

I got mine when I renewed my $25 pledge to the PBS broadcasting annual membership drive.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

So long as there's a gun involved for the good guy, nothing can go wrong!

No just let the government have a dictatorship on violence. Nothing could go wrong then especially since everything they do sucks except murdering millions. The only thing the government does well is killing the masses. They know how to slaughter slaves. They know how to power thrash the little ninny slaves lash styled. But hey nothing can go wrong when only the government can have the guns. They'd never put British agents in charge and start a world war to slaughter 50 million people.

After all Adolf Hilter's compadre was never a British agent was he. It was just a conspiracy theory. They never would think to run a black operation on the world and stage a war. After all they'd only gain the world. Who would ever want that?



Before it was a conspiracy theory. Now it is in the news. IN THE NEWS!!!!

Just trust your loving government. Give them your guns. Hand in your guns. You can trust them. Go on now. Do it. Surrender your weapons and enjoy what they're gonna do to yah now. They are trustworthy people.

Let the government have a dictatorship on violence. What could go wrong? I love how the article downplays it like all major news does. Oh now now....he just was a British Intelligence Agent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8306475.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy
Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini. Benito Mussolini

 

[Bill4411]

No just let the government have a dictatorship on violence. Nothing could go wrong then especially since everything they do sucks except murdering millions. The only thing the government does well is killing the masses. They know how to slaughter slaves. They know how to power thrash the little ninny slaves lash styled. But hey nothing can go wrong when only the government can have the guns. They'd never put British agents in charge and start a world war to slaughter 50 million people.

After all Adolf Hilter's compadre was never a British agent was he. It was just a conspiracy theory. They never would think to run a black operation on the world and stage a war. After all they'd only gain the world. Who would ever want that?



Before it was a conspiracy theory. Now it is in the news. IN THE NEWS!!!!

Just trust your loving government. Give them your guns. Hand in your guns. You can trust them. Go on now. Do it. Surrender your weapons and enjoy what they're gonna do to yah now. They are trustworthy people.

View embedded media

Let the government have a dictatorship on violence. What could go wrong? I love how the article downplays it like all major news does. Oh now now....he just was a British Intelligence Agent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8306475.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/13/benito-mussolini-recruited-mi5-italy
Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini. Benito Mussolini

So who's behind all this? The Queen of England?

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

So who's behind all this? The Queen of England?

She certainly loved her Hitler like a George Bush head. She puts her hand salute up there real nice.

TRUST YOUR WORLD LEADERS. KNEEL BEFORE THEIR CHAIR AND SURRENDER BEFORE THEM.

 

[tantalum]

I give two shits about my "right" to own a gun. I'd happily give it up to be even 0.00001% safer, and I think the impact would be much greater than that,

I would not being willing to have another government bureaucracy telling me what I can and cannot do to make me .00001% safer. I guess some people just love spending their life filling out forms and standing in line but that is not for me.

 

[qazplm]

So who's behind all this? The Queen of England?

sigh, now you are just encouraging him...ask about the Rothchilds next.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

I give two shits about my "right" to own a gun. I'd happily give it up to be even 0.00001% safer, and I think the impact would be much greater than that,

I would not being willing to have another government bureaucracy telling me what I can and cannot do to make me .00001% safer. I guess some people just love spending their life filling out forms and standing in line but that is not for me.

But the government is our daddy. Our da da. Our papa. You need to hand in your guns. Governments are good when their populations aren't armed. They treat the public very nicely. I assure you. Hand in the guns. Give them to the government. Please people. Give your guns to the government. They'll respect you for it and make sure you are so safe. The man in a uniform can be papa. The man in a uniform can do what his filthy rich owner tells him too. And you can bet Mr. filthy rich guy is a gonna take care of the public and be Mr. dada.


Make sure just the government has the weapons. It works rather nicely for public safety. They can be our moma.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I give two shits about my "right" to own a gun. I'd happily give it up to be even 0.00001% safer, and I think the impact would be much greater than that,

I would not being willing to have another government bureaucracy telling me what I can and cannot do to make me .00001% safer. I guess some people just love spending their life filling out forms and standing in line but that is not for me.

Simple: don't buy a gun then. If you're not willing to stand in line or fill out a form, it's not that important to you anyway.

 

[ecouch]

Simple: don't buy a gun then. If you're not willing to stand in line or fill out a form, it's not that important to you anyway.

Are you willing to apply this to the 1st amendment as well?

Qaz tapped out when the going got tough, what about you?

 

[Bill4411]

Are you willing to apply this to the 1st amendment as well?

Qaz tapped out when the going got tough, what about you?

The second amendment apparently was originally attached to the constitution for the purpose of allowing individual states to have a ready militia that would not be impeded by the new government. It apparently has nothing to do with the right of a citizen to own an arm however most lay people now believe that's its sole meaning but this not what a constitutional scholar would say.

The second amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS allows the states to determine their own individual policies on guns not the federal government although clearly the federal government now controls a lot of the weapons that can be available for purchase. The bill of rights were the add ons so the new central government could get the Constitution ratified by the individual states. If you read the Constitution it mostly is about the separation of the government into the judiciary, legislative and executive branches and how they are to individually function.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this simple interpretation Qaz or Gr8?

Here is all the second amendment says:

1. 
   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[ecouch]

The second amendment apparently was originally attached to the constitution for the purpose of allowing individual states to have a ready militia that would not be impeded by the new government. It apparently has nothing to do with the right of a citizen to own an arm however most lay people now believe that's its sole meaning but this not what a constitution scholar would say. The second amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS allows the states to determine their own individual policies on guns not the federal government although clearly the federal government now controls a lot of the weapons that can be available for purchase. The bill of rights were the add ons so the new central government could get the Constitution ratified by the individual states. If you read the Constitution it mostly is about the separation of the government into the judiciary, legislative and executive branches and how they are to individually function.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this simple interpretation Qaz or Gr8?

Here is all the second amendment says:

1. 
   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court of the United States of America.

This is too easy.

Why did you delete your post about federal registration that results in the BATFE kicking in your door if you didn't pay the annual firearm registration fee?

 

[Bill4411]

The Supreme Court of the United States of America.

This is too easy.

Why did you delete your post about federal registration that results in the BATFE kicking in your door if you didn't pay the annual firearm registration fee?

I actually have no idea what you are talking about? I don't know of anything I deleted other than an incomplete post that wasn't a completed thought.

 

[ecouch]

I actually have no idea what you are talking about? I don't know of anything I deleted other than an incomplete post that wasn't a completed thought. Who is BATFE?

I rest my case.

 

[Bill4411]

I rest my case.

I'm glad you are satisfied with yourself. I looked up BATFE and am sorry I did not know the initials stood for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. What does that prove? BTW am I to understand you have no respect for what the Supreme court determines?

 

[qazplm]

Are you willing to apply this to the 1st amendment as well?

Qaz tapped out when the going got tough, what about you?

Tapped out of what? When did the going get tough again?
And we place restrictions on the first amendment all of the time, so you betray your lack of knowledge with that comment.

 

[qazplm]

The second amendment apparently was originally attached to the constitution for the purpose of allowing individual states to have a ready militia that would not be impeded by the new government. It apparently has nothing to do with the right of a citizen to own an arm however most lay people now believe that's its sole meaning but this not what a constitutional scholar would say.

The second amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS allows the states to determine their own individual policies on guns not the federal government although clearly the federal government now controls a lot of the weapons that can be available for purchase. The bill of rights were the add ons so the new central government could get the Constitution ratified by the individual states. If you read the Constitution it mostly is about the separation of the government into the judiciary, legislative and executive branches and how they are to individually function.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this simple interpretation Qaz or Gr8?

Here is all the second amendment says:

1. 
   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For the vast majority of our existence as a nation, the 2d amendment was not incorporated to include the states and thus it was not an individual right per se...it was only the recent relatively speaking SC decision that flipped that. Of course, that's what you get when you get the "right" folks in the majority. Even still, states and the federal government can still place restrictions on gun ownership which means it isn't an unfettered right (and of course there are no unfettered rights in the Constitution anyways).

 

[Jedifick]

Looks like the hillary staffers are a little butthurt that the rest of the country wants to expand the 2nd ammendment.

 

[beardownboiler]

Looks like the hillary staffers are a little butthurt that the rest of the country wants to expand the 2nd ammendment.

Who is "the rest of the country," and what the hell do you mean by "expand the 2nd ammendment" (sic)? Would the ability to "expand" an amendment mean that Constitution is a living document?

 

[Purdue97]

I think a lot of people don't understand what the second amendment is about or why it was adopted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...36d2b1245_story.html?postshare=71443815946531

I know you won't believe a supreme court justice and since the article is in a "liberal" newspaper you won't believe the contents of the it as to how we came to have the second amendment.

Interesting read. The issue I have with it more than anything else is it points out that judges and really people in general will flip flop about federalism as it pertains to the subject at hand instead of being an actual belief.

 

[Purdue97]

No offense. but I still have a problem buying the story about the guy having 550 guns. Have you actually seen them, or is this an urban myth? As I said, I have a friend, who's an avid gun collector and I've seen most of his collection (around 100 guns) and it takes up a lot of space (many gun safes). I'm trying to imagine the space 550 guns takes and it boggles the mind.

I really don't have an agenda, other than to make people think, rather than just buy into a lot of political BS. When I hear Leftwing talking points, I assume the person spouting them is of that persuasion. If I've maligned you, I apologize.

The point of teaching my sons to shoot at such an early age, was to impress upon them the importance of GUN SAFETY. By shooting the milk jug full of water, they learned how much potential damage a very small bullet can do. They learned to always assume a gun is loaded, until they verify it isn't. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. I felt it was important to teach them properly, in the event that if they either found a gun, or one of their friends brought out one of their parents guns, they would have enough knowledge to avoid an unfortunate accident. Keeping kids in the dark and afraid of guns, probably causes more accidents, than it avoids.

I always get a chuckle out of the idiots, who shoot themselves and say it happened, while they were cleaning their guns. Anyone who has any practical experience with guns, would check to see if it were loaded, BEFORE starting to clean it. I suspect most of these fools were practicing their quick draw, when the gun fired and were too embarrassed to actually admit what they were doing. Yes, there are some people that I don't think should ever have guns, but I support their Constitutional right to have one. By the same token, I know a lot of people, that scare the hell out of me, when they get behind a steering wheel. How they ever passed a driving test just amazes me, but they're out there driving....

An infantry company of 140 people or so has about 200 guns. Anyone that has 550 should be a registered collector or better yet in a museum somewhere.

 

[Purdue97]

There is a distinct difference between supporting and defending the Constitution, and agreeing with every interpretation of it.

Add to that following or not following what can be an illegal order and soldiers, operators, marines, or sailors can find themselves in some pretty damning situations.