The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 20, 2018, 02:46:27 pm
-
By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Monday, February 19, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Teens across the nation, fed up with school shootings, are planning marches, media events and three-minute demonstrations at the White House in order to get across their messages of frustration with the Second Amendment and to demand lawmakers take immediate action.
Now if only they weren’t so dang entitled, snarky and obnoxious.
“My message for the people in office is: You’re either with us or against us,†said junior Cameron Kasky, in CNN. “We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around.â€
Oh please. Insert eye-roll here.
more
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/19/obnoxious-ignorant-teens-now-demand-curbs-guns/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/19/obnoxious-ignorant-teens-now-demand-curbs-guns/)
-
Let's not be selfish here. 17 lives were snuffed out by an idiot with an assault weapon. Those who own and use guns need to be part of the solution. Guns don't cause violence, but they sure facilitate its magnitude.
Conservatives would be well advised to support efficacious gun restrictions, such as gun violence restraining orders, and measures that provide law enforcement with the tools to track and trace stolen guns.
-
... efficacious gun restrictions ...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/N7FeGLHjVsDQY/giphy.gif)
-
Let's not be selfish here. 17 lives were snuffed out by an idiot with an assault weapon. Those who own and use guns need to be part of the solution. Guns don't cause violence, but they sure facilitate its magnitude.
Conservatives would be well advised to support efficacious gun restrictions, such as gun violence restraining orders, and measures that provide law enforcement with the tools to track and trace stolen guns.
Being concerned that I might be prohibited from defending myself from society's predators is not "selfish."
Maybe to the restraining orders, but not as written up by that French fellow you posted elsewhere, and certainly not to your second suggestion "Provide law enforcement tools to track and trace." That's code for "register and insure," your old saw. If you can add "tools" to law enforcement without registering the weapons of innocent people, I'd be willing to look at that.
-
Being concerned that I might be prohibited from defending myself from society's predators is not "selfish."
Maybe to the restraining orders, but not as written up by that French fellow you posted elsewhere, and certainly not to your second suggestion "Provide law enforcement tools to track and trace." That's code for "register and insure," your old saw. If you can add "tools" to law enforcement without registering the weapons of innocent people, I'd be willing to look at that.
Someone earlier mentioned "tracking" of guns to the store level. Does that make sense?
-
Someone earlier mentioned "tracking" of guns to the store level. Does that make sense?
I don't know, I'd have to see it. Not if the applications for the NICS checks are retained, because them registration is just 2 plus 2 away.
-
I don't know, I'd have to see it. Not if the applications for the NICS checks are retained, because them registration is just 2 plus 2 away.
I'm guessing it's sort of the case now, isn't it? I'm guessing the police tracked the FL shooter's weapons to the store where he bought them.
-
"Let's use these teens as political pawns by sending them out to scream at Republican lawmakers for Gun Control"
"Why don't they scream at the FBI instead?"
"Leave those poor grieving kids alone"
-
No more pencils no more books
No more teacher's dirty looks yeah
Well we got no class
And we got no "principles"
-
"Let's use these teens as political pawns by sending them out to scream at Republican lawmakers for Gun Control"
"Why don't they scream at the FBI instead?"
"Leave those poor grieving kids alone"
"Shouldn't we be concerned that these kids are being used as political pawns to further an agenda they may not understand?"
"SHUT UP! HOW DARE YOU ATTACK THE CHILDREN!!!"
-
Let's not be selfish here. 17 lives were snuffed out by an idiot with an assault weapon. Those who own and use guns need to be part of the solution. Guns don't cause violence, but they sure facilitate its magnitude.
Conservatives would be well advised to support efficacious gun restrictions, such as gun violence restraining orders, and measures that provide law enforcement with the tools to track and trace stolen guns.
It occurred to me that this kid probably could've killed as many if not more had he sped through the quad in his car as classes were letting out.
I doubt very much Americans would tolerate DC proposing a new law in response requiring a mandatory annual practical driving exams for everyone in order to maintain their driving privileges.
Proposing to further curtail 2A rights is exactly the same thing. Although the things you specifically name above seem reasonable.
-
I'm guessing it's sort of the case now, isn't it? I'm guessing the police tracked the FL shooter's weapons to the store where he bought them.
I know you are joking, but to those who do think that way, all I say is, they chose to get into the arena.
-
Being concerned that I might be prohibited from defending myself from society's predators is not "selfish."
That's a straw man. No one is suggesting anything that would deprive you of the right to defend yourself. Does the requirement that you register and insure your car deprive you of the ability to drive anywhere you want?
The gun hobbyists are hung up on a slippery slope of their own imaginations. The Second Amendment guarantees you the right to defend your home and property, but doesn't prevent the community from insisting that the cops have the means to track and trace stolen guns, or to remove guns temporarily from the possession of persons with evidence of mental illness or violence. The goals are not mutually exclusive.
-
No one is suggesting anything that would deprive you of the right to defend yourself.
The biggest lie in every debate about "gun control." It's all about depriving people of their weapons. The whole point.
-
The biggest lie in every debate about "gun control." It's all about depriving people of their weapons. The whole point.
Bullshit. Again - are you deprived of your car because you must register and insure it?
Stop being selfish.
-
Stop being selfish.
We fully intend to be selfish by refusing to surrender our rights into becoming just government-granted regulated privileges at the behest of people like you.
You're going to have to empower the government to go out and use guns to kill those of us who refuse to comply with your 'unselfish' ideas - should they become policy.
-
Again - are you deprived of your car because you must register and insure it?
Actually, yes. Well, not me personally, but my son cannot buy a car because he is unable to afford the insurance on it.
-
Bullshit. Again - are you deprived of your car because you must register and insure it?
Stop being selfish.
"Bullshit" is the exactly response I expected. Do yourself a favor and forget commenting to me about this subject, I already know you are a sack of it.
-
It occurred to me that this kid probably could've killed as many if not more had he sped through the quad in his car as classes were letting out.
I doubt very much Americans would tolerate DC proposing a new law in response requiring a mandatory annual practical driving exams for everyone in order to maintain their driving privileges.
Proposing to further curtail 2A rights is exactly the same thing. Although the things you specifically name above seem reasonable.
@skeeter
I told my wife that if an evil person can't get guns, they'll just walk into the school, pull the fire alarm, and then wait for all the kids to line up neatly in the parking lot so they can drive a truck through them. Or they'll wait for the Pep Rally, chain the doors shut in the gym, and set the building on fire. Or they'll poison the school lunch.
There's a million ways to perpetrate evil.
You see, @Jazzhead doesn't actually BELIEVE in the existence of good and evil. He's a moral relativist and atheist. So he doesn't understand how evil comes to be. That's why he's on this thread talking about gun control. He honestly believes that evil won't find a way if we just take away ONE tool.
Newsflash: the largest mass killing of students in U.S. history was by using incendiary devices (Bath School killings). In Europe, for the 18 months ending in Dec 2017, there were 146 deaths by mass vehicular homicide. In the U.S. for the same timeframe, there were 133 deaths my mass killings with an "assault rifle."
Step one: believe in evil.
Step two: understand that evil will find a way.
Step three: combat evil by valuing life, preaching the absolute existence of good and evil, stop denying God, and explaining the eternal consequences of evil.
Evil will always exist, and will always find a way, but the more moral a society is, the more likely the number of events will decline drastically.
-
The biggest lie in every debate about "gun control." It's all about depriving people of their weapons. The whole point.
Absolutely correct.
Look at what the leftists who run CA are doing - while a the same time coming up with law after law making felons out of law abiding gun owners, Jerry Brown has significantly rolled back many of the state's strictest sentencing laws. They're even considering a bill releasing any lifer over 60 who's done 25 years or more of their sentence.
They-dont-care-about-our-safety. They want the guns.
-
@skeeter
I told my wife that if an evil person can't get guns, they'll just walk into the school, pull the fire alarm, and then wait for all the kids to line up neatly in the parking lot so they can drive a truck through them. Or they'll wait for the Pep Rally, chain the doors shut in the gym, and set the building on fire. Or they'll poison the school lunch.
There's a million ways to perpetrate evil.
You see, @Jazzhead doesn't actually BELIEVE in the existence of good and evil. He's a moral relativist and atheist. So he doesn't understand how evil comes to be. That's why he's on this thread talking about gun control. He honestly believes that evil won't find a way if we just take away ONE tool.
Newsflash: the largest mass killing of students in U.S. history was by using incendiary devices (Bath School killings). In Europe, for the 18 months ending in Dec 2017, there were 146 deaths by mass vehicular homicide. In the U.S. for the same timeframe, there were 133 deaths my mass killings with an "assault rifle."
Step one: believe in evil.
Step two: understand that evil will find a way.
Step three: combat evil by valuing life, preaching the absolute existence of good and evil, stop denying God, and explaining the eternal consequences of evil.
Evil will always exist, and will always find a way, but the more moral a society is, the more likely the number of events will decline drastically.
He claims the "moral high ground," but in reality his is the most immoral stance one can take. Depriving people of one of the most basic natural rights in the universe, the right to defend oneself, isn't even simple immorality, it's evil. This is one of those times I stand right next to brother @INVAR in describing this person.
-
"Bullshit" is the exactly response I expected. Do yourself a favor and forget commenting to me about this subject, I already know you are a sack of it.
And I already know that the question stymies you, and responding in the personal is all you can muster.
No one is trying to deny you the right to defend yourself. Why can't you do so with one or more registered and insured firearms? Or is your selfishness akin to INVAR's, who promises to kill federal agents just trying to do their jobs?
-
He claims the "moral high ground," but in reality his is the most immoral stance one can take. Depriving people of one of the most basic natural rights in the universe, the right to defend oneself, isn't even simple immorality, it's evil.
Except that's a straw man. Requiring the registration and insurance of your firearms does not deprive you of your most basic natural right of self defense, any more than requiring you to register and insure your car deprives you of your most basic natural right to travel.
-
No one is trying to deny you the right to defend yourself. Why can't you do so with one or more registered and insured firearms? Or is your selfishness akin to INVAR's, who promises to kill federal agents just trying to do their jobs?
Yes. Our forbears killed Redcoats trying to do theirs.
-
@skeeter
I told my wife that if an evil person can't get guns, they'll just walk into the school, pull the fire alarm, and then wait for all the kids to line up neatly in the parking lot so they can drive a truck through them. Or they'll wait for the Pep Rally, chain the doors shut in the gym, and set the building on fire. Or they'll poison the school lunch.
There's a million ways to perpetrate evil.
You see, @Jazzhead doesn't actually BELIEVE in the existence of good and evil. He's a moral relativist and atheist. So he doesn't understand how evil comes to be. That's why he's on this thread talking about gun control. He honestly believes that evil won't find a way if we just take away ONE tool.
Newsflash: the largest mass killing of students in U.S. history was by using incendiary devices (Bath School killings). In Europe, for the 18 months ending in Dec 2017, there were 146 deaths by mass vehicular homicide. In the U.S. for the same timeframe, there were 133 deaths my mass killings with an "assault rifle."
Step one: believe in evil.
Step two: understand that evil will find a way.
Step three: combat evil by valuing life, preaching the absolute existence of good and evil, stop denying God, and explaining the eternal consequences of evil.
Evil will always exist, and will always find a way, but the more moral a society is, the more likely the number of events will decline drastically.
As it says in Ecclesiastes, there truly is madness in the hearts of man.
Their failure to understand this is why "progressives" never get anything right.
-
You see, @Jazzhead doesn't actually BELIEVE in the existence of good and evil. He's a moral relativist and atheist.
Wrong on both counts.
-
Wrong on both counts.
Do you believe there are evil people serving in government?
-
Except that's a straw man. Requiring the registration and insurance of your firearms does not deprive you of your most basic natural right of self defense, any more than requiring you to register and insure your car deprives you of your most basic natural right to travel.
Requiring registration and approval of your religion does not deprive you of your most basic natural right to believe, any more than requiring you to register and insure your car deprives you of your most basic natural right to travel.
Neither does registration and limits on being able to speak or communicate via the press or on the internet deprive you of your most basic natural right to say something in the privacy of your own home.
Jazzhead, you are every rabid Marxist's wet dream of a spokesman.
-
Please forgive the length of this cartoon, but it illustrates why I'm sick to death of people like Jazz on the argument of regulating the Second Amendment. I've been dealing with this for decades, and I've had loved ones murdered, so I think I have a right to have a stake in this.
(https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png)
No more. No more. This is why I've taken a stand, and will fight ANY attempt to tighten controls on my right to defend myself against society's predators. Tomorrow's my 60th Birthday. Can anybody guess what's on my wish-list? Hint: I'm about to be told I'm being selfish and unreasonable.
-
As it says in Ecclesiastes, there truly is madness in the hearts of man.
Their failure to understand this is why "progressives" never get anything right.
I think this is the point where we agree: how do we prevent the mad from acquiring weapons?
-
No more. No more. This is why I've taken a stand, and will fight ANY attempt to tighten controls on my right to defend myself against society's predators. Tomorrow's my 60th Birthday. Can anybody guess what's on my wish-list? Hint: I'm about to be told I'm being selfish and unreasonable.
If we focus on mental illness, will that help? And happy early birthday!
-
No more. No more. This is why I've taken a stand, and will fight ANY attempt to tighten controls on my right to defend myself against society's predators. Tomorrow's my 60th Birthday. Can anybody guess what's on my wish-list? Hint: I'm about to be told I'm being selfish and unreasonable.
Enjoy your hobby/fetish, and happy birthday.
-
If we focus on mental illness, will that help? And happy early birthday!
We already are. We need to follow laws currently on the books, and that's not happening.
-
Enjoy your hobby/fetish, and happy birthday.
Fetish?
Screw you.
-
I think this is the point where we agree: how do we prevent the mad from acquiring weapons?
While not allowing ourselves to be dominated by the mad in dark places and in positions of authority.
-
Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns
They may be obnoxious and ignorant, but I'd hear them and prepare to educate them. Calling them names isn't helpful.
This is a new voting bloc ... it will be formidable and they're coming for your guns.
-
I think this is the point where we agree: how do we prevent the mad from acquiring weapons?
In Europe, the same questions are being asked about "lorries" (trucks in American English speak).
How can they possible allow people to own, steal, borrow or rent a lorry? Lorries are used to run down and kill innocent people.
-
We already are. We need to follow laws currently on the books, and that's not happening.
What laws currently on the books would have prevented the carnage in Florida?
(Serious question @Cyber Liberty )
-
What laws currently on the books would have prevented the carnage in Florida?
(Serious question @Cyber Liberty )
Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990.
Where are the means to prevent firearms from being brought onto campus? Metal detectors? Armed faculty? FBI follow up on obvious red flags?
Signs don't cut it.
It was a feel good, unserious law. The only law politicians/bureaucrats are serious about is one removing a perceived threat to their own authority.
-
What laws currently on the books would have prevented the carnage in Florida?
(Serious question @Cyber Liberty )
There's the list of FBI tips that weren't followed, to start with. Technically they broke the law every time they failed to follow up on one of the tips. Dittos for the locals. Most of those tips go to the state of mind of the accused.
-
Fetish?
Fetish, Absolutist, Selfish, Extremist, Bigot, Homophobe and every other typical Leftist slur and insult that we have heard has been levied by our resident Leftist on this board towards those who do not embrace his Marxist worldview.
-
Fetish, Absolutist, Selfish, Extremist, Bigot, Homophobe and every other typical Leftist slur and insult that we have heard has been levied by our resident Leftist on this board towards those who do not embrace his Marxist worldview.
Kinky.
-
Fetish, Absolutist, Selfish, Extremist, Bigot, Homophobe and every other typical Leftist slur and insult that we have heard has been levied by our resident Leftist on this board towards those who do not embrace his Marxist worldview.
It's just another addition to the long list of things that one has called me. My standing favorite is "Invar's Lickspittle." Has a certain ring to it he has yet to top in grandiloquence.
-
Fetish?
Screw you.
Oh, stop being such a grumpyface. I collect jazz records, and have many more than I'll ever be able to listen to. Call that my fetish, if you will. You want a gun for your birthday, to add to your collection. You don't need it, for protection or otherwise, you just dig guns. That's fine - but it does qualify as a fetish: "An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence", according to Webster's New College dictionary.
Happiness is a warm gun - enjoy your special day!
-
If no significant gun control legislation was passed following the slaughter of 20 innocent school children in Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, when Obama was the president and the democrats controlled the senate, what makes anyone think that gun control laws have any chance of passing now with republicans in full control of the government?
The democrats paid lip service to “doing something†about guns, but nothing happened then nor will anything happen now because democrats want the gun control issue to be raging on for the upcoming midterms.
-
If no significant gun control legislation was passed following the slaughter of 20 innocent school children in Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, when Obama was the president and the democrats controlled the senate, what makes anyone think that gun control laws have any chance of passing now with republicans in full control of the government?
Yet we have Republicans in full control of government passing a 1.5 TRILLION dollar deficit spending budget, outspending Obama's regime.
Republicans are the ones now joining the call to 'do something' about guns.
-
Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990.
Where are the means to prevent firearms from being brought onto campus? Metal detectors? Armed faculty? FBI follow up on obvious red flags?
Signs don't cut it. It was a feel good, unserious law. The only law politicians/bureaucrats are serious about is one removing a perceived threat to their own authority.
This was my point ... we have no laws on the books that would have prevented this because we are unserious about identifying and treating our mentally ill.
-
This was my point ... we have no laws on the books that would have prevented this because we are unserious about identifying and treating our mentally ill.
I disagree, we have the laws. What we lack is the guts to follow them. Well, at least our politicians do.
-
If no significant gun control legislation was passed following the slaughter of 20 innocent school children in Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, when Obama was the president and the democrats controlled the senate, what makes anyone think that gun control laws have any chance of passing now with republicans in full control of the government?
The democrats paid lip service to “doing something†about guns, but nothing happened then nor will anything happen now because democrats want the gun control issue to be raging on for the upcoming midterms.
This is true. The fact is, gun owners tend to be more politically active than non gun owners on this issue. It's a big coastal elite/ media issue but Democrats in swing districts tend to tread more carefully. Recall the Million Mom March in the late 1990's that was supposed to sweep anti gun Democrats in power. It didn't go as planned
BTW, comparing gun ownership to car ownership is a faulty comparison. For one, Driving is not a right. And there's no history of tyrants confiscating automobiles when solidifying their power
-
Laura wrote:
"I think this is the point where we agree: how do we prevent the mad from acquiring weapons?"
Answer:
You don't. At least not all the time.
Some are going to get them anyway.
And some are going to go off the cliff and use them against innocents.
We can take numerous reasonable and rational steps to identify and confine some of these shooters, and we may get a good number of them preemptively. But nevertheless, SOME are going to slip through the cracks or otherwise evade detection.
For that reason, these kind of killings are going to continue regardless of what attempts at "gun control" are imposed upon us.
So... the only logical course of action is to OPPOSE EVERYTHING that the leftists-communists agitate for. Because nothing for which they agitate will do much to solve the problem.
I've come to the conclusion that a certain number of innocent deaths at the hands of crazed lunatic killers (such as the one in Florida a few days' back) is ultimately "the price we must pay" -- IF we are to keep our full Second Amendment rights.
The only parameter we must decide upon is HOW MANY innocent deaths per year is a reasonable cost for our freedom to buy and own the weapons we want.
Since no one else in this forum other than me would be willing to offer up such a number, I will:
I'll reckon that "cost" to be 600-1,300 lives per year (for lack of any point of reference).
In a nation of 300+ million, that's a small enough "price to pay".
The flame suit is on.
-
So... the only logical course of action is to OPPOSE EVERYTHING that the leftists-communists agitate for. Because nothing for which they agitate will do much to solve the problem.
I've come to the conclusion that a certain number of innocent deaths at the hands of crazed lunatic killers (such as the one in Florida a few days' back) is ultimately "the price we must pay" -- IF we are to keep our full Second Amendment rights.
The only parameter we must decide upon is HOW MANY innocent deaths per year is a reasonable cost for our freedom to buy and own the weapons we want.
Since no one else in this forum other than me would be willing to offer up such a number, I will:
I'll reckon that "cost" to be 600-1,300 lives per year (for lack of any point of reference).
In a nation of 300+ million, that's a small enough "price to pay".
The flame suit is on.
Your argument fails because there is plenty we can do to prevent gun violence and solve crimes of gun violence by merely regulating the right but not denying it. Registration and insurance of firearms doesn't deny the RKBA, any more than registration and insurance denies your right to travel by motor vehicle.
Your absolutist insistence that ANY regulation is a slippery slope to confiscation is insane, given the hundreds of millions of firearms out there and the thousands of preventable deaths. OF COURSE efficacious regulation that saves lives is worth the small price to the legal gunowner. Stop being selfish - the community is suffering, and a solution must be found.
-
Your argument fails because there is plenty we can do to prevent gun violence and solve crimes of gun violence by merely regulating the right but not denying it. Registration and insurance of firearms doesn't deny the RKBA, any more than registration and insurance denies your right to travel by motor vehicle.
Your absolutist insistence that ANY regulation is a slippery slope to confiscation is insane, given the hundreds of millions of firearms out there and the thousands of preventable deaths. OF COURSE efficacious regulation that saves lives is worth the small price to the legal gunowner. Stop being selfish - the community is suffering, and a solution must be found.
"and a solution must be found."
Okay, the country institutes all the feel good proposals. The new measures do little or nothing to stop the killings. Then what?
I'm not saying there's a "reasonable" amount of deaths we should allow, but the idea that a "solution" can be readily found is just as overly optimistic. Many times there are no "solutions"....just trade offs or slight abatement of the problem. Sometimes the solutions are worse than what was before.
We already know the FBI fell down on the job. So have other law enforcement or gov. agencies. Barring total banning and confiscation of firearms, these killings will continue.
We can do more things to identify and keep guns away from mental cases or potential killers, but that will not stop them entirely.
So my question to you is how far do you want to go if the what looks like brand new (feel good) measures are taken and the shootings are not abated?
-
"and a solution must be found."
Okay, the country institutes all the feel good proposals. The new measures do little or nothing to stop the killings. Then what?
I'm not saying there's a "reasonable" amount of deaths we should allow, but the idea that a "solution" can be readily found is just as overly optimistic. Many times there are no "solutions"....just trade offs or slight abatement of the problem. Sometimes the solutions are worse than what was before.
We already know the FBI fell down on the job. So have other law enforcement or gov. agencies. Barring total banning and confiscation of firearms, these killings will continue.
We can do more things to identify and keep guns away from mental cases or potential killers, but that will not stop them entirely.
So my question to you is how far do you want to go if the what looks like brand new (feel good) measures are taken and the shootings are not abated?
I don't support "feel good" measures. I support efficacious regulation, that will help deter gun violence (e.g., gun violence restraining orders), permit law enforcement to track and trace stolen guns, and provide for a fund for compensating the victims of gun violence. Any such laws should be carefully drawn to limit the intrusion on lawful gunowners.
-
Your argument fails because there is plenty we can do to prevent gun violence and solve crimes of gun violence by merely regulating the right but not denying it. Registration and insurance of firearms doesn't deny the RKBA, any more than registration and insurance denies your right to travel by motor vehicle.
Maybe when you have a chance you can explain how registering and insuring firearms will stop mass shootings by lunatics, or serve any other useful purpose than provide information to the government on where to find lawfully owned firearms.
-
I don't support "feel good" measures. I support efficacious regulation, that will help deter gun violence (e.g., gun violence restraining orders), permit law enforcement to track and trace stolen guns, and provide for a fund for compensating the victims of gun violence. Any such laws should be carefully drawn to limit the intrusion on lawful gunowners.
I'm not necessarily against some of your proposals. What I'm trying to say is that, barring total confiscation of all firearms, these killings will continue no matter what good or bad proposals are passed.
There's just no way to stop most of these killings. Like I said, try and pass reasonable, well thought out bills with the knowledge that they'll most likely do little to stop crazed killers.
The only good measures to stop future killings is to identify and stop these killers before they can kill. And arming certified people in previously gun free zones i.e schools would help as well.
-
... I support efficacious regulation, that will help deter gun violence (e.g., gun violence restraining orders), permit law enforcement to track and trace stolen guns, and provide for a fund for compensating the victims of gun violence. Any such laws should be carefully drawn to limit the intrusion on lawful gunowners.
How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida @Jazzhead
How does "limiting the intrusion on lawful gun owners" not constitute an infringement on a right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed?
-
Jazzhand
Would you support insurance for guns if the gun owner didn't have to pay for it? IOW the government paid for it.
And why just victims of gun violence? Why not all victims of violence?
-
How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida @Jazzhead
How does "limiting the intrusion on lawful gun owners" not constitute an infringement on a right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed?
:facepalm2:
-
Jazzhand
Would you support insurance for guns if the gun owner didn't have to pay for it? IOW the government paid for it.
Why shouldn’t the owner pay for it? Does the government pay for your car insurance?
-
Why shouldn’t the owner pay for it? Does the government pay for your car insurance?
I want to know if the purpose of the insurance is to deter gun ownership. That not the intention of auto insurance.
-
How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida @Jazzhead
How does "limiting the intrusion on lawful gun owners" not constitute an infringement on a right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed?
I’m not opposed to things like a background check. There already is one in place and I don’t consider that an infringement. I’m not also one who believes that any laws passed means a government agent will be knocking on my door tomorrow to take me to a re education camp although a little vigilance on my part wouldn’t hurt. I also like to steer clear of fiery rhetoric about shooting government agents
We are caught in the emotion of the moment and as a result, we see demands for lawmakers to “do something†about guns. But if the past is any guide, it seems we pass laws to deal with guns and when those laws don’t work we need more and when those fail to solve the problem, well, you get the idea. There’s no denying that in areas of this country that have some of the strictest gun laws also have some of the highest homocide rates.
The problem with licensing guns is when you license something, it becomes more of a privilege. And requiring gun owners to have insurance may put gun ownership out of reach of lower income, yet law abiding citizens. We license and insure cars and automobile deaths far surpass death by guns
It seems whether we pass laws seek “solutions†be it guns or anything we run into the law of unintended consequences
-
:facepalm2:
Well, why don't you take a crack at an actual answer?
-
Gun owners would do well to take the focus off the 2nd Amendment and put it on school safety.
We make changes in school safety protocols ... and you'll be polishing your rifle uninterrupted for the rest of your life.
-
I want to know if the purpose of the insurance is to deter gun ownership. That not the intention of auto insurance.
One of the purposes of requiring car insurance is deterring car ownership by financially irresponsible or destitute people.
Are you saying government should be paying for our auto insurance?
-
Here's what I asked .. How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida
Any ideas on this?
It wouldn’t
-
Gun owners would do well to take the focus off the 2nd Amendment and put it on school safety.
We make changes in school safety protocols ... and you'll be polishing your rifle uninterrupted for the rest of your life.
That would be a good step. However, you need to deal with the fact that to-date many of the procedures that would have deterred this sort of thing are routinely not followed through on. If these alternatives cannot be relied upon, then there is only one rational response left.
-
It wouldn’t
Thank you.
-
Laura wrote:
"I think this is the point where we agree: how do we prevent the mad from acquiring weapons?"
Answer:
You don't. At least not all the time.
Some are going to get them anyway.
And some are going to go off the cliff and use them against innocents.
We can take numerous reasonable and rational steps to identify and confine some of these shooters, and we may get a good number of them preemptively. But nevertheless, SOME are going to slip through the cracks or otherwise evade detection.
For that reason, these kind of killings are going to continue regardless of what attempts at "gun control" are imposed upon us.
So... the only logical course of action is to OPPOSE EVERYTHING that the leftists-communists agitate for. Because nothing for which they agitate will do much to solve the problem.
I've come to the conclusion that a certain number of innocent deaths at the hands of crazed lunatic killers (such as the one in Florida a few days' back) is ultimately "the price we must pay" -- IF we are to keep our full Second Amendment rights.
The only parameter we must decide upon is HOW MANY innocent deaths per year is a reasonable cost for our freedom to buy and own the weapons we want.
Since no one else in this forum other than me would be willing to offer up such a number, I will:
I'll reckon that "cost" to be 600-1,300 lives per year (for lack of any point of reference).
In a nation of 300+ million, that's a small enough "price to pay".
The flame suit is on.
What if a loved one of yours was the victim
-
Well, why don't you take a crack at an actual answer?
In this particular situation, requiring insurance and registration might have deterred him because it might have prevented him from purchasing in the first place. No purchase, no gun, no dead kids.
-
We insure cars because they get in accidents. Those accidents require money for repairs or medical compensation and you can't count on the steerage to have that cash when it comes down to paying according to the politicians. So we must have car insurance.
Gun accidents are very rare. If a gun kills someone, that is almost exclusively a purposeful act. IIRC half the shootings in the US go unsolved or involve a gun not legally owned by the shooter. or a suicide. IOW no pockets to pick and no insurance. The chance of one of my guns hurting someone is almost 0%, if I had guns. I should be paying about $1 a year for insurance under those rules. So what is the point? The only point I can find is that we want to make it more difficult for poor people in high crime areas to legally obtain a gun or to put more poor young black men in prison for having a gun without insurance.
-
One of the purposes of requiring car insurance is deterring car ownership by financially irresponsible or destitute people.
And you have no problem with that.
Do you realize the admission you've just made? Insurance is a racket to screw the poor and deny them access to transportation.
-
In this particular situation, requiring insurance and registration might have deterred him because it might have prevented him from purchasing in the first place. No purchase, no gun, no dead kids.
Because only responsible people buy insurance, only responsible people will own guns?
:facepalm2:
-
In this particular situation, requiring insurance and registration might have deterred him because it might have prevented him from purchasing in the first place. No purchase, no gun, no dead kids.
Because there are no people driving around without insurance? If his plan was to go down in a blaze of glory, the cost of insurance would be irrelevant to him.
-
That would be a good step. However, you need to deal with the fact that to-date many of the procedures that would have deterred this sort of thing are routinely not followed through on. If these alternatives cannot be relied upon, then there is only one rational response left.
So you admit the problem is we are not enforcing the laws on the books, and you think the "one rational response" is to write more laws?
Didn't Einstein have a quote about that?
-
That would be a good step. However, you need to deal with the fact that to-date many of the procedures that would have deterred this sort of thing are routinely not followed through on. If these alternatives cannot be relied upon, then there is only one rational response left.
Yup. And if a meteor hits the planet tonight ... everything we did today will be for naught, but we're still going to work and live our lives.
Preventive school safety protocols have not been established --- Not in the schools, not in the FBI, not in local law enforcement and not in the mental health arena.
Why not define the protocols and put them in place before waving the white flag?
-
@skeeter
I told my wife that if an evil person can't get guns, they'll just walk into the school, pull the fire alarm, and then wait for all the kids to line up neatly in the parking lot so they can drive a truck through them. Or they'll wait for the Pep Rally, chain the doors shut in the gym, and set the building on fire. Or they'll poison the school lunch.
There's a million ways to perpetrate evil.
You see, @Jazzhead doesn't actually BELIEVE in the existence of good and evil. He's a moral relativist and atheist. So he doesn't understand how evil comes to be. That's why he's on this thread talking about gun control. He honestly believes that evil won't find a way if we just take away ONE tool.
Newsflash: the largest mass killing of students in U.S. history was by using incendiary devices (Bath School killings). In Europe, for the 18 months ending in Dec 2017, there were 146 deaths by mass vehicular homicide. In the U.S. for the same timeframe, there were 133 deaths my mass killings with an "assault rifle."
Step one: believe in evil.
Step two: understand that evil will find a way.
Step three: combat evil by valuing life, preaching the absolute existence of good and evil, stop denying God, and explaining the eternal consequences of evil.
Evil will always exist, and will always find a way, but the more moral a society is, the more likely the number of events will decline drastically.
Exactly correct
-
I don't think Jazz cares about school shootings. They are merely a pawn, just like the kids on CNN.
Do you know why people drive around without car insurance? They don't want to pay it. Does the government go to their house and confiscate their car? No. What's going to happen if people don't want to pay their gun insurance? Is the government going to break into the house and confiscate the guns?
-
In this particular situation, requiring insurance and registration might have deterred him because it might have prevented him from purchasing in the first place. No purchase, no gun, no dead kids.
My turn. :facepalm2:
-
I don't think Jazz cares about school shootings. They are merely a pawn, just like the kids on CNN.
Do you know why people drive around without car insurance? They don't want to pay it. Does the government go to their house and confiscate their car? No. What's going to happen if people don't want to pay their gun insurance? Is the government going to break into the house and confiscate the guns?
I believe he does.
But what he is proposing deserves scrutiny
Part of being a conservative is to question government and government solutions and try to avoid emotional responses even after tragedies
-
Your argument fails because there is plenty we can do to prevent gun violence and solve crimes of gun violence by merely regulating the right but not denying it. Registration and insurance of firearms doesn't deny the RKBA, any more than registration and insurance denies your right to travel by motor vehicle.
Your absolutist insistence that ANY regulation is a slippery slope to confiscation is insane, given the hundreds of millions of firearms out there and the thousands of preventable deaths. OF COURSE efficacious regulation that saves lives is worth the small price to the legal gunowner. Stop being selfish - the community is suffering, and a solution must be found.
@Jazzhead
Once fire arms are registered they will be confiscated by the ruling oligarchy. Guaranteed. Our
ruling elites do not like us little people having the ability to defend what little freedoms we have
left.
The progressive Marxists want our guns and one of these days they will get them and then
we are screwed. Registration is a huge goal for the progressive Marxists. Since that is what you
are pushing you are either very foolish or a progressive Marxist.
-
@Jazzhead
Once fire arms are registered they will be confiscated by the ruling oligarchy. Guaranteed. Our
ruling elites do not like us little people having the ability to defend what little freedoms we have
left.
The progressive Marxists want our guns and one of these days they will get them and then
we are screwed. Registration is a huge goal for the progressive Marxists. Since that is what you
are pushing you are either very foolish or a progressive Marxist.
Some here believe that if we don’t give gun control activist a little bit of what they want, they’ll come for our guns as a result
Others say if we do that, they’ll be emboldened to come for our guns as a result
-
I believe he does.
But what he is proposing deserves scrutiny
Part of being a conservative is to question government and government solutions and try to avoid emotional responses even after tragedies
End guns free zones. Most mass shooting occur in gun free zones.
How many people are killed every year by illegals? Why isn't the media making a big deal about
all the deaths caused by illegals?
-
@Jazzhead
Once fire arms are registered they will be confiscated by the ruling oligarchy. Guaranteed. Our
ruling elites do not like us little people having the ability to defend what little freedoms we have
left.
The progressive Marxists want our guns and one of these days they will get them and then
we are screwed. Registration is a huge goal for the progressive Marxists. Since that is what you
are pushing you are either very foolish or a progressive Marxist.
Registration does not mean confiscation. Registration does not mean denial of the right of self-defense. Just look at the registration required for cars - it has neither led to confiscation or the denial of the right to travel. But if a car is stolen, registration provides a means for assigning the vehicle to its owner.
You are alarmed by straw men. Your absolutism and paranoia is, frankly, ridiculous. There may be half a billion firearms out there, unregistered, untraceable, and all capable of shooting up a school. A reasonable regime of licensure, registration and insurance is just as useful and necessary for guns as it is for cars - and just as constitutional.
Stop being selfish.
-
End guns free zones. Most mass shooting occur in gun free zones.
How many people are killed every year by illegals? Why isn't the media making a big deal about
all the deaths caused by illegals?
I have no objection to ending gun-free school zones, and enlisting trained individuals to carry to protect the school.
As for deaths by illegals, what the hell planet are you on? The media seems obsessed these days with crimes committed by illegals.
-
Registration does not mean confiscation. Registration does not mean denial of the right of self-defense. Just look at the registration required for cars - it has neither led to confiscation or the denial of the right to travel.
Stupid argument. You don't need to register a car to own one.
-
Registration does not mean confiscation. Registration does not mean denial of the right of self-defense. Just look at the registration required for cars - it has neither led to confiscation or the denial of the right to travel. But if a car is stolen, registration provides a means for assigning the vehicle to its owner.
You are alarmed by straw men. Your absolutism and paranoia is, frankly, ridiculous. There may be half a billion firearms out there, unregistered, untraceable, and all capable of shooting up a school. A reasonable regime of licensure, registration and insurance is just as useful and necessary for guns as it is for cars - and just as constitutional.
Stop being selfish.
Legally owned guns are already traceable through their serial number by the ATF (and only through the ATF). Therefore your suggestion to register firearms serves no purpose other than to make it easier for eventual confiscation.
-
I have no objection to ending gun-free school zones, and enlisting trained individuals to carry to protect the school.
As for deaths by illegals, what the hell planet are you on? The media seems obsessed these days with crimes committed by illegals.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Thats 1 Stoneman Douglas school massacre every 36 hours.
-
Registration does not mean confiscation. Registration does not mean denial of the right of self-defense. Just look at the registration required for cars - it has neither led to confiscation or the denial of the right to travel.
You are alarmed by straw men. Your absolutism and paranoia is, frankly, ridiculous. There may be half a billion firearms out there, unregistered, untraceable, and all capable of shooting up a school. A reasonable regime of licensure, registration and insurance is just as useful and necessary for guns as it is for cars - and just as constitutional.
Stop being selfish.
If big government does not scare you you're not very bright. Big government has killed 100's of
millions of people in the 20th century alone. How many people have been killed by a mad man
with a gun?
Registration is the necessary first step to confiscation. I'd rather not take that step. Also
registration would not have prevented any mass shooting that I am aware of. Please explain
how registration would have prevented this recent shooting?
This shooting was a massive failure of law enforcement at the local state and federal level.
The shooter should never have been allowed to buy a weapon. The FBI was tipped twice and did
nothing. The local cops had been to his house almost 40 times. How the hell did he pass a
background test? Why wasn't his gun taken from him? Enforcing existing gun laws should have
prevented this shooting. The last thing we need is more laws.
-
Let's not be selfish here.
We had better be. Nothing screams failure like giving government more authority and influence over your life. See every entitlement program ever enacted as evidence.
-
Stupid argument. You don't need to register a car to own one.
Look who you are speaking to. That was a given! :whistle:
-
... Stop being selfish.
In all candor, I don't understand what you mean by "selfish" --- but for some reason this scares me.
Can you explain this a little further? @Jazzhead
Thanks.
-
In all candor, I don't understand what you mean by "selfish" --- but for some reason this scares me.
Can you explain this a little further? @Jazzhead
Thanks.
"Selfish" and "childish" are two of his favorite slurs. Apparently, we're supposed to read those and feel guilty enough to cave in to his ridiculous arguments.
-
Stupid argument. You don't need to register a car to own one.
You need to register a car to use it for its intended purpose. Why shouldn't the same apply to guns? Registration is not "infringement" of the natural right - follow the rules and you can keep your home and property safe and secure.
-
In all candor, I don't understand what you mean by "selfish" --- but for some reason this scares me.
Can you explain this a little further? @Jazzhead
Thanks.
Selfish: Gun fetishists obsessed with protecting their "right" to amass whatever arsenal they want in total secrecy, and to hell with the worries of the community over a nation awash in a half a billion guns, most unregistered and untraceable.
-
You need to register a car to use it for its intended purpose. The same should apply to guns.
I bought a car for the intended purpose of racing it at tracks and drag strips. All on private property. I don't need to register those and I don't need a DL issued by some bureaucratic agency. I have also bought several guns to use specifically at the firing range. I won't register those either.
Screw your phony baloney argument.
-
Selfish: Gun fetishists obsessed with protecting their "right" to amass whatever arsenal they want in total secrecy, and to hell with the worries of the community over a nation awash in a half a billion guns, most unregistered and untraceable.
Thats a flat falsehood.
I don't know how you statists do it - continue to shrug off clearly enumerated constitutional rights while arguing for others nowhere to be found.
-
In all candor, I don't understand what you mean by "selfish" --- but for some reason this scares me.
Can you explain this a little further? @Jazzhead
Thanks.
Selfish: *^% the tenents of your faith, bake me my damn cake.
-
Thats a flat falsehood.
I don't know how you statists do it - continue to shrug off clearly enumerated constitutional rights while arguing for others nowhere to be found.
Roamer brags about buying guns off the back of a truck. How do you trace ownership of such guns?
-
Selfish: *^% the tenents of your faith, bake me my damn cake.
Cakes again? Sheesh, you're obsessed. If you don't want to sell wedding cakes, don't advertise them. If you do, then live up to your word.
-
I bought a car for the intended purpose of racing it at tracks and drag strips. All on private property. I don't need to register those and I don't need a DL issued by some bureaucratic agency. I have also bought several guns to use specifically at the firing range. I won't register those either.
Screw your phony baloney argument.
And screw your selfishness.
-
@Jazzhead still waiting for you to explain how registration would prevent mass shootings?
IIRC the gov keeps who bought what weapon for something like 6 months, so the gov knew Cruz
had an AR.
-
Roamer brags about buying guns off the back of a truck. How do you trace ownership of such guns?
How about a courtesy ping for @roamer_1, you little popcorn fart? If you're going to badmouth my friend, have the guts to do it to his face.
-
Selfish: Gun fetishists obsessed with protecting their "right" to amass whatever arsenal they want in total secrecy, and to hell with the worries of the community over a nation awash in a half a billion guns, most unregistered and untraceable.
I'll proudly wear the @Jazzhead label, "selfish." My wife and I got selfish again yesterday, and we tipped a couple of glasses your way when we did. We stoppered the AR-15 shaped hole in our collection, and said "Thanks Jazz, for reminding us!"
-
How about a courtesy ping for @roamer_1, you little popcorn fart? If you're going to badmouth my friend, have the guts to do it to his face.
LOL. Roam will be on him like vaseline on Heath Ledger's chaps.
-
How about a courtesy ping for @roamer_1, you little popcorn fart? If you're going to badmouth my friend, have the guts to do it to his face.
How am I bad-mouthing Roamer? I didn't say he was doing something unlawful, nor was I requesting an explanation from him. If there's a loophole in the law, go ahead and exploit it. My point is that this IS a loophole, and guns bought off the back of trucks are essentially untraceable.
-
I'll proudly wear the @Jazzhead label, "selfish." My wife and I got selfish again yesterday, and we tipped a couple of glasses your way when we did. We stoppered the AR-15 shaped hole in our collection, and said "Thanks Jazz, for reminding us!"
Glad I contributed in a small way to the happiness of your birthday celebration.
-
Roamer brags about buying guns off the back of a truck. How do you trace ownership of such guns?
Mr. M bought a .38 revolver from a coworker a few years ago. OMG!! Ownership can't be traced!!! Of course, that gun never, ever will be used in the commission of a crime, but OMG!!!! Not traceable!!!!!!
-
How am I bad-mouthing Roamer? I didn't say he was doing something unlawful, nor was I requesting an explanation from him. If there's a loophole in the law, go ahead and exploit it. My point is that this IS a loophole, and guns bought off the back of trucks are essentially untraceable.
Then you shouldn't have had any trouble giving him a courtesy ping. I detected a great deal of scoff in your comments about him, so maybe I'm all wet about it.
-
Roamer brags about buying guns off the back of a truck. How do you trace ownership of such guns?
I believe the sale of such guns are already illegal (I'm in CA so perhaps I'm wrong about this). Are you proposing we pass a law to register illegal guns?
The vast majority of firearms are purchased legally. Gun shops selling them are required to keep physical records of serial numbers and purchasers for years. In the case of crimes committed the ATF traces serials number to the original buyer.
Mandatory registration will put all legal firearm data where it can be easily accessed en mass. The only reason the government would want to do this is if they planned mass confiscation.
-
Mr. M bought a .38 revolver from a coworker a few years ago. OMG!! Ownership can't be traced!!! Of course, that gun never, ever will be used in the commission of a crime, but OMG!!!! Not traceable!!!!!!
Really? So you can guarantee 100% that the gun will never be stolen from you, and used in a crime. If you have the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy, perhaps you should be trading stocks instead of wasting time here.
-
Such guns are already illegal. Are you proposing we pass a law to register illegal guns?
The vast majority of firearms are purchased legally. Gun shops selling them are required to keep physical records of serial numbers and purchasers for years. In the case of crimes committed the ATF traces serials number to the original buyer.
Mandatory registration will put all legal firearm data where it can be easily accessed en mass. The only reason the government would want to do this is if they planned mass confiscation.
@skeeter
Yup, plus registration would do nothing to stop mass shootings which is why @Jazzhead refuses
to answer my question in an earlier post and at the top of this page.
-
Such guns are already illegal. Are you proposing we pass a law to register illegal guns?
The vast majority of firearms are purchased legally. Gun shops selling them are required to keep physical records of serial numbers and purchasers for years. In the case of crimes committed the ATF traces serials number to the original buyer.
Mandatory registration will put all legal firearm data where it can be easily accessed en mass. The only reason the government would want to do this is if they planned mass confiscation.
Guns "sold off the back of a truck" are not illegal, unless they are shipped across state lines.
Gun shops selling them are required to keep physical records of serial numbers and purchasers for years.
Truedat. I asked my friend at the gun shop that very thing, and he says "20 years." In the first month after 20 years, the shop gives them to a document destruction company.
Mandatory registration will put all legal firearm data where it can be easily accessed en mass. The only reason the government would want to do this is if they planned mass confiscation.
The eventual confiscation has happened almost, if not every the time it's been tried. Pro banners ignore this fact and dismiss us as "paranoid" (and my new favorite, "selfish") because we don't believe them when they say "Nobody wants to confiscate your weapons."
Yes, they do, and I assume as much whenever anybody says they don't.
-
I believe the sale of such guns are already illegal (I'm in CA so perhaps I'm wrong about this). Are you proposing we pass a law to register illegal guns?
The vast majority of firearms are purchased legally. Gun shops selling them are required to keep physical records of serial numbers and purchasers for years. In the case of crimes committed the ATF traces serials number to the original buyer.
Mandatory registration will put all legal firearm data where it can be easily accessed en mass. The only reason the government would want to do this is if they planned mass confiscation.
I don't think a person to person sale is illegal here in Texas. I know they happen all the time and
no one ever gets in trouble.
-
@skeeter
Yup, plus registration would do nothing to stop mass shootings which is why @Jazzhead refuses
to answer my question in an earlier post and at the top of this page.
How do you know that registration, along with an insurance requirement, would not deter irresponsible whackos who are intent on doing something wrong from buying guns?
You can’t. Mandatory auto insurance deters the most irresponsible and destitute from owning cars, so the same would hold for firearms.
-
Really? So you can guarantee 100% that the gun will never be stolen from you, and used in a crime. If you have the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy, perhaps you should be trading stocks instead of wasting time here.
@Oceander
What other crimes do you propose the victims be responsible for?
Rape? Child molestation? Murder? Theft?
-
Really? So you can guarantee 100% that the gun will never be stolen from you, and used in a crime. If you have the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy, perhaps you should be trading stocks instead of wasting time here.
If a gun is stolen from me, it's already been used in a crime: Larceny. And I immediately hand over the serial number and description of the weapon to the Police. I've already been there.
-
Stop being selfish.
You are going to have to empower the state to hire a shit-ton more agents to put guns to our heads to force us not to be 'selfish' there bub.
Which is what your real intent is in all your advocacies.
Which is why I call you the tyranny-advocate you are.
-
@Oceander
What other crimes do you propose the victims be responsible for?
Rape? Child molestation? Murder? Theft?
Why don’t you try asking a question that bears some semblance to the topic being discussed?
-
How do you know that registration, along with an insurance requirement, would not deter irresponsible whackos who are intent on doing something wrong from buying guns?
You are asking people to prove a negative.
You can’t. Mandatory auto insurance deters the most irresponsible and destitute from owning cars, so the same would hold for firearms.
So you admit a secondary purpose of Insurance is to deny poor people the privilege of owning a car? And that would be a good thing to apply to the right to self defense? "Insurance as punishment" sort of takes "The process is the punishment" to a new level.
-
You are going to have to empower the state to hire a shit-ton more agents to put guns to our heads to force us not to be 'selfish' there bub.
Which is what your real intent is in all your advocacies.
Which is why I call you the tyranny-advocate you are.
IIRC, Paul Revere was sent to warn people the British Army was coming to stop people from being selfish.
-
How do you know that registration, along with an insurance requirement, would not deter irresponsible whackos who are intent on doing something wrong from buying guns?
You can’t. Mandatory auto insurance deters the most irresponsible and destitute from owning cars, so the same would hold for firearms.
Right back at ya buddy. How do you know it would? You can't.
Lot's of people drive without insurance or even a license so your argument holds no water.
Only the law biding obey the laws. Wackos could not care less about the law.
I will note that once again you are siding with the progressive Marxists. Seems to be a habit
with you.
-
Roamer brags about buying guns off the back of a truck. How do you trace ownership of such guns?
Why would you need to trace ownership?
-
Really? So you can guarantee 100% that the gun will never be stolen from you, and used in a crime. If you have the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy, perhaps you should be trading stocks instead of wasting time here.
There you go again with the strawman argument. I never said anything about the gun being stolen from him and then being used in a crime. I am confident in saying my husband will never commit a crime with that gun. How about you? Can you predict you'll never commit a crime?
As for the rest of the future, the only thing I'll guarantee with 100% accuracy at this moment is that in a few minutes I will go downstairs and bake a coffee cake.
-
IIRC, Paul Revere was sent to warn people the British Army was coming to stop people from being selfish.
Yes. Yes they were.
And it should be pointed out to all, that when the agents of the Crown were sent to stop the Colonists from being selfish fetishists, the Crown bought themselves a war.'
Likewise we warn the advocates of tyranny, that the same fate awaits them should they be so stupid to repeat similar mistakes.
-
Yes. Yes they were.
And it should be pointed out to all, that when the agents of the Crown were sent to stop the Colonists from being selfish fetishists, the Crown bought themselves a war.'
Likewise we warn the advocates of tyranny, that the same fate awaits them should they be so stupid to repeat similar mistakes.
But sadly.... the stuckonstupid leftists aren't heeding our warnings. They're mad (that they lost) and they're not gonna take it any more, gosh darnit! As usual, we will have to 'show' them.
-
Yes. Yes they were.
And it should be pointed out to all, that when the agents of the Crown were sent to stop the Colonists from being selfish fetishists, the Crown bought themselves a war.'
Likewise we warn the advocates of tyranny, that the same fate awaits them should they be so stupid to repeat similar mistakes.
Forgetting the Bedroom....I always wanted to be a Minuteman!
-
In the 30 years PRIOR to the passage of the 1990 gun free school zones legislation, there were 87 school shootings.
In the 28 (~30) years since the passage, there have bee 271 school shootings. Three times the number of shooting of the prior 30 years.
So I ask the question:
Is the gun free school zone legislation so effective that it warrants depriving US citizens of their rights?
Only presenting facts, I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.
-
Why would you need to trace ownership?
So they can find deep pockets to sue if a weapon that once belonged to somebody wealthy gets used in a violent crime. Leftists can be pretty creative to finding ways to separate people from their money, in order to fuel the Leviathan.
-
You are asking people to prove a negative.
So you admit a secondary purpose of Insurance is to deny poor people the privilege of owning a car? And that would be a good thing to apply to the right to self defense? "Insurance as punishment" sort of takes "The process is the punishment" to a new level.
The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance. The same applies to guns.
-
But sadly.... the stuckonstupid leftists aren't heeding our warnings. They're mad (that they lost) and they're not gonna take it any more, gosh darnit! As usual, we will have to 'show' them.
The redcoats in @INVAR's and my recollection thought the Colonialists would meekly stop being selfish fetishists. We saw how that worked out.
-
You need to register a car to use it for its intended purpose.
Nope. I have a beater field car to run around the property. It has no paperwork and was sold on a bill of sale as a parts car. It came from out of state where older cars don't have titles. The govt' doesn't know I own it and they never will.
I will also add that all the shiny new cars at your local dealer have no titles or registrations. They only have a certificate from the manufacturer that they built it. It doesn't get registered until someone buys it to drive. I know a guy who has a 1950 Town and Country convertible that has never been titled or registered. It is still on the manufacturers certificate. It has about 30K miles on it so it was driven without any paperwork.
-
The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance. The same applies to guns.
People drive without insurance all the time. Guess you skipped the part of your policy called "Under insured/uninsured motorists".
-
@skeeter
Yup, plus registration would do nothing to stop mass shootings which is why @Jazzhead refuses
to answer my question in an earlier post and at the top of this page.
I'm concerned about gun violence generally, not just mass shootings. Registration and insurance will provide a means of assigning legal liability to the registered gun owner and encourage gun owners to transfer firearms lawfully and to swiftly report stolen guns. Insurance can also, as with auto insurance, encourage safe practices and create a fund for the compensation of victims of gun violence.
For mass shootings - typically (but not always, see Las Vegas) committed by the mentally unstable - I support laws permitting folks close to the individual to seek gun violence restraining orders that, following due process, would permit guns to be removed for a period of time.
I do not support a ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons", but could support raising the age for purchasing an semi-automatic to 21, and banning high capacity magazines.
-
The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance. The same applies to guns.
That's where you (and @Jazzhead) always step off the cliff. Driving a car on the public streets is a privilege, self defense (with the attendant requirement to be armed to properly in order to do so when faced with a larger predator) is a right.
-
The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance. The same applies to guns.
Driving a car is not an enumerated constitution right that is not to be infringed. And you have
not provided any evidence what so ever requiring a license and insurance has reduced mass
slayings via autos/trucks.
-
The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance. The same applies to guns.
The day I buy insurance for a gun is the day an authentic, mint condition Walker Colt comes into my possession.
-
I'm concerned about gun violence generally, not just mass shootings. Registration and insurance will provide a means of assigning legal liability to the registered gun owner and encourage gun owners to transfer firearms lawfully and to swiftly report stolen guns. Insurance can also, as with auto insurance, encourage safe practices and create a fund for the compensation of victims of gun violence.
For mass shootings - typically (but not always, see Las Vegas) committed by the mentally unstable - I support laws permitting folks close to the individual to seek gun violence restraining orders that, following due process, would permit guns to be removed for a period of time.
I do not support a ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons", but could support raising the age for purchasing an semi-automatic to 21, and banning high capacity magazines.
Just a quick note, we really know nothing about what really happened at Las Vegas, since gov (fbi)
has been completely silent on that. And right about now I would not believe one damn thing
the fbi puts out.
-
The redcoats in @INVAR's and my recollection thought the Colonialists would meekly stop being selfish fetishists. We saw how that worked out.
Denial of reality is what lefties excel at. Considering how much the left fears, hates and loathes the US Military (mostly Conservatives).... I think they have a glimmer of that reality but just won't acknowledge it. The radical core of elitists in control of their agenda will push it anyway. What's a few (million) lives, anyway? Collateral damage for securing their agenda.
-
That's where you (and @Jazzhead) always step off the cliff. Driving a car on the public streets is a privilege, self defense (with the attendant requirement to be armed to properly in order to do so when faced with a larger predator) is a right.
There is no effective difference from the standpoint of lawful regulation, except that a "right" cannot be denied, at least not arbitrarily. But requiring you to register and insure your firearms doesn't deny you the ability to be "armed properly" to address an intruder. But self-defense isn't what bothers you - you are a gun hobbyist, who doesn't want to pay the cost to insure the dozens of weapons in your collection. Sorry, CL, some hobbies cost money. But the cost to insure the gun you need for self-defense cannot by definition be prohibitive, or it would infringe upon on the right itself.
-
That's where you (and @Jazzhead) always step off the cliff. Driving a car on the public streets is a privilege, self defense (with the attendant requirement to be armed to properly in order to do so when faced with a larger predator) is a right.
"Rights" are just community-granted privileges that government must of necessity, 'reasonably regulate' and rescind if the Collective so decides.
Refusing to surrender your rights to mere privilege is 'selfish'.
Haven't you been following the arguments?
Enumerated Rights can be regulated, taxed, licensed and restricted unless you abide by government-imposed mandates that permits you to exercise those 'rights', otherwise they are by default - abolished by default.
Unless of course 'Rights' are NOT enumerated, wherein they are untouchable and eternal.
Like abortion and homosexual marriage behaviors.
-
Denial of reality is what lefties excel at. Considering how much the left fears, hates and loathes the US Military (mostly Conservatives).... I think they have a glimmer of that reality but just won't acknowledge it. The radical core of elitists in control of their agenda will push it anyway. What's a few (million) lives, anyway? Collateral damage for securing their agenda.
Bunker dwellers like you are nuts.
-
I do not support a ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons", but could support raising the age for purchasing an semi-automatic to 21, and banning high capacity magazines.
Nobody has ever sufficiently explained it to me: What's the problem with "high capacity magazines?" If I'm walking down a street, and I am set upon by a gang of thugs, what state interest is served by limiting how many I am allowed to repel before the remainder of the group kills me?
Is this some variation of dumb-ass Coumo's line "You...don't...need...ten...bullets...to...kill...a...deer!" (Only if you're a crappy marksman and don't care about ruining meat.)
-
Just a quick note, we really know nothing about what really happened at Las Vegas, since gov (fbi)
has been completely silent on that. And right about now I would not believe one damn thing
the fbi puts out.
Right about now.... it appears that the FBI is complicit in the mass shootings. Nothing else explains why they continue, time after time.... incident after incident, to refuse to act, to investigate and to do their damned jobs. It can't be incompetence. Nobody is 'that' incompetent. If that were true, why would they all keep their jobs? No.... something else is afoot here. Something even more stinky than the Clinton/Gorelick "wall".
-
There is no effective difference from the standpoint of lawful regulation, except that a "right" cannot be denied, at least not arbitrarily. But requiring you to register and insure your firearms doesn't deny you the ability to be "armed properly" to address an intruder. But self-defense isn't what bothers you - you are a gun hobbyist, who doesn't want to pay the cost to insure the dozens of weapons in your collection. Sorry, CL, some hobbies cost money. But the cost to insure the gun you need for self-defense cannot by definition be prohibitive, or it would infringe upon on the right itself.
You are making the claim that because I have a collection there is no self-defense value to my weapons, therefore I am not deserving of the right to defend myself against predators.
You are full of it. You are, in fact, full of what you seem to be made of.
-
Bunker dwellers like you are nuts.
Three little words, leftie. GFY. ^-^
-
Three little words, leftie. GFY. ^-^
:rolling:
-
There is no effective difference from the standpoint of lawful regulation, except that a "right" cannot be denied, at least not arbitrarily.
Oh bullshit.
You routinely advocate the arbitrary denial of the exercise of 'rights' to mere government-granted privileges so as to make the exercise of "rights' so limited and costly as to effectively abolish them.
But requiring you to register and insure your firearms doesn't deny you the ability to be "armed properly" to address an intruder.
It will when you and your precious Statists make insurance costs so high and prohibitive that only the richest Hollywood and corporatist citizens or agents of the state can exercise that right. Then you will move from firearms to knives, swords, slingshots and baseball bats.
It's what you advocates of tyranny always do. You never stop moving the goalposts or the lines of where 'rights' are just regulated privileges of the state.
Unless it's abortion, government-run healthcare or homosexuality.
Bunker dwellers like you are nuts.
I'm sure your next tyrannical suggestion will be to argue the empowerment of the State to imprison and eliminate 'bunker-dwelling nuts' that frighten you so.
Like I said - you are buying yourself a war and you will rue the day you were stupid enough to empower your behemoth government to instigate it.
-
So they can find deep pockets to sue if a weapon that once belonged to somebody wealthy gets used in a violent crime. Leftists can be pretty creative to finding ways to separate people from their money, in order to fuel the Leviathan.
But if the gun is stolen, the owner is the victim of a crime. If a person steals your car and kills someone, you are not liable.
Better yet, if someone steals your car, rapes a woman in it and she gets pregnant, do you have to pay child support?
-
Right about now.... it appears that the FBI is complicit in the mass shootings. Nothing else explains why they continue, time after time.... incident after incident, to refuse to act, to investigate and to do their damned jobs. It can't be incompetence. Nobody is 'that' incompetent. If that were true, why would they all keep their jobs? No.... something else is afoot here. Something even more stinky than the Clinton/Gorelick "wall".
FINALLY! Someone here gets it.
It is why I have said that you cannot stop tranny via civil means, and that there is absolutely no redeeming of the politically-weaponized Alphabets that serve something far more sinister than the vast majority of Americans are even willing to contemplate.
Just one more reason why disarming us is so intently necessary; it serves the greater means to the end they seek.
-
But if the gun is stolen, the owner is the victim of a crime. If a person steals your car and kills someone, you are not liable.
There are states that require you to report the theft of a gun to the police within 30 days of the crime. If you don't, you can be prosecuted for a Felony, in effect making a crime victim into a criminal.
-
That is only if you KNOW the gun was stolen.
-
Right about now.... it appears that the FBI is complicit in the mass shootings. Nothing else explains why they continue, time after time.... incident after incident, to refuse to act, to investigate and to do their damned jobs. It can't be incompetence. Nobody is 'that' incompetent. If that were true, why would they all keep their jobs? No.... something else is afoot here. Something even more stinky than the Clinton/Gorelick "wall".
FINALLY! Someone here gets it.
It is why I have said that you cannot stop tranny via civil means, and that there is absolutely no redeeming of the politically-weaponized Alphabets that serve something far more sinister than the vast majority of Americans are even willing to contemplate.
Just one more reason why disarming us is so intently necessary; it serves the greater means to the end they seek.
It's worth noting at this point the FBI is very likely immune from being sued for the negligence of dropping the ball so many times on this punk-ass shooter of High School students. We've already been informed by great minds here that the FBI and DoJ is immune from being charged for their malfeasance in the FISA matter.
-
That is only if you KNOW the gun was stolen.
A distinction without a difference. Only a bloody fool would say, "Why yes officer, I noticed it was missing six months ago and didn't report." Other than an admission from my own lips, it would be difficult to prove if that was the standard (and I don't know that it is, anyway).
-
Oh bullshit.
You routinely advocate the arbitrary denial of the exercise of 'rights' to mere government-granted privileges so as to make the exercise of "rights' so limited and costly as to effectively abolish them.
It will when you and your precious Statists make insurance costs so high and prohibitive that only the richest Hollywood and corporatist citizens or agents of the state can exercise that right. Then you will move from firearms to knives, swords, slingshots and baseball bats.
It's what you advocates of tyranny always do. You never stop moving the goalposts or the lines of where 'rights' are just regulated privileges of the state.
Unless it's abortion, government-run healthcare or homosexuality.
I'm sure your next tyrannical suggestion will be to argue the empowerment of the State to imprison and eliminate 'bunker-dwelling nuts' that frighten you so.
Like I said - you are buying yourself a war and you will rue the day you were stupid enough to empower your behemoth government to instigate it.
Give it some time... Requiring insurance to leave one's home will be coming at some point... And insurance for your childrens actions outside their home... There are endless potential things one might do to cause damage and it is only "reasonable" that you carry insurance to mitigate all of it...
Land of the free, home of the brave is a cruel joke these days.
-
FINALLY! Someone here gets it.
It is why I have said that you cannot stop tranny via civil means, and that there is absolutely no redeeming of the politically-weaponized Alphabets that serve something far more sinister than the vast majority of Americans are even willing to contemplate.
Just one more reason why disarming us is so intently necessary; it serves the greater means to the end they seek.
It's worth noting at this point the FBI is very likely immune from being sued for the negligence of dropping the ball so many times on this punk-ass shooter of High School students. We've already been informed by great minds here that the FBI and DoJ is immune from being charged for their malfeasance in the FISA matter.
Deep state tyranny on steroids.... ie using the FBI to implement that leftie agenda.
-
Three little words, leftie. GFY. ^-^
:facepalm2:
Yeah, Jazz, or else she’ll shoot you. What else would an accessory to murder do?
-
You are making the claim that because I have a collection there is no self-defense value to my weapons, therefore I am not deserving of the right to defend myself against predators.
No that is not what I am claiming. But you do not need a collection to "defend yourself against predators". Your collection is a luxury, and you fear having to insure your collection because it would cost you money. That's selfish.
-
That is only if you KNOW the gun was stolen.
If you had legal liability unless and until you report the gun as stolen, you'd make it your reason to know.
-
:facepalm2:
Yeah, Jazz, or else she’ll shoot you. What else would an accessory to murder do?
Several folks here get off on murder fantasies, it appears.
-
But you do not need a collection to "defend yourself against predators". Your collection is a luxury, and you fear having to insure your collection because it would cost you money. That's selfish.
Translation: Your Rights are a "luxury", and you all fear to have restrictions and regulations imposed on them because it costs money and time in red government tape. To oppose this is selfish, which is the subtle attempt to shame you into surrendering your rights to become government-granted privileges as dictated by our Collective, before we simply dispense with niceties and declare you to be an enemy of the state that needs to be put down.
-
No that is not what I am claiming. But you do not need a collection to "defend yourself against predators". Your collection is a luxury, and you fear having to insure your collection because it would cost you money. That's selfish.
You are being a presumptive fool if you think my arms are not insured. The point is, you would force everybody to do it as a means to drive ownership of them out of hopes of people of lower means than I.
To be crystal clear, Jazz, my arms are insured against theft, and that's because I don't expect others to pick up the loss if they are stolen. Only leftists do that, and naturally assume others do as well. Once they are stolen from me, my responsibility for how they are used is terminated.
-
You are being a presumptive fool if you think my arms are not insured. The point is, you would force everybody to do it as a means to drive ownership of them out of hopes of people of lower means than I.
To be crystal clear, Jazz, my arms are insured against theft, and that's because I don't expect others to pick up the loss if they are stolen. Only leftists do that, and naturally assume others do as well. Once they are stolen from me, my responsibility for how they are used is terminated.
Are they insured against the damage that might happen to others when they’re used? If you go to a firing range, negligently discharge the gun, and as a result someone is hit in the face by a ricochet and loses an eye, will they be covered?
-
Translation: Your Rights are a "luxury", and you all fear to have restrictions and regulations imposed on them because it costs money and time in red government tape. To oppose this is selfish, which is the subtle attempt to shame you into surrendering your rights to become government-granted privileges as dictated by our Collective, before we simply dispense with niceties and declare you to be an enemy of the state that needs to be put down.
The counselor assumes many things that are not in evidence. He assumes I don't insure my weapons, for example. Leftists always accuse others of what they themselves believe and do.
-
To be crystal clear, Jazz, my arms are insured against theft, and that's because I don't expect others to pick up the loss if they are stolen.
That is not the kind of 'insurance' he wants the state to impose.
He wants a mandate of prohibitively expensive liability insurance imposed before you are permitted to have any arms at all.
-
Bunker dwellers like you are nuts.
Do you put higher priority on registering/controlling/restricting guns,
or on law enforcement responding, as in FBI, local police and US Air Force?
-
Are they insured against the damage that might happen to others when they’re used? If you go to a firing range, negligently discharge the gun, and as a result someone is hit in the face by a ricochet and loses an eye, will they be covered?
If somebody loses an eye because of my negligence with my firearm, they are of course covered under the policy that I carry, same as if I accidentally hit them with my 1968 Tigers World Series autographed baseball bat. As for what happens if somebody does damage after stealing one of my weapons, I encourage you to go back and re-read the last sentence of the post you quoted.
-
That is not the kind of 'insurance' he wants the state to impose.
He wants a mandate of prohibitively expensive liability insurance imposed before you are permitted to have any arms at all.
Why should it be prohibitively expensive, particularly if there are so many firearms out there and, by hypothesis, most owners are otherwise trustworthy, reliable people?
If there are 100 million firearms in the US, then a premium of $10 per firearm per year would provide a fund able to cover $1 billion in claims per year, every year. That’s not “prohibitively expensiveâ€.
-
That is not the kind of 'insurance' he wants the state to impose.
He wants a mandate of prohibitively expensive liability insurance imposed before you are permitted to have any arms at all.
Yeah, that's what I suspect too. He was trying to appeal to my logic as a collector of things to try to expand it to what you describe. It's not going to work. Once somebody removes a weapon by Larceny, my responsibility is ended.
-
If somebody loses an eye because of my negligence with my firearm, they are of course covered under the policy that I carry, same as if I accidentally hit them with my 1968 Tigers World Series autographed baseball bat. As for what happens if somebody does damage after stealing one of my weapons, I encourage you to go back and re-read the last sentence of the post you quoted.
So why shouldn’t liability insurance be mandatory for every firearm? And given that the per firearm cost is likely to be quite low, it would be simple enough to have an uninsured firearm rider that would go into a fund to cover damages caused by illegal firearms or when used by uninsured shooters.
-
Why should it be prohibitively expensive, particularly if there are so many firearms out there and, by hypothesis, most owners are otherwise trustworthy, reliable people?
If there are 100 million firearms in the US, then a premium of $10 per firearm per year would provide a fund able to cover $1 billion in claims per year, every year. That’s not “prohibitively expensiveâ€.
We don't know what the premium rate would be yet, do we? I maintain that premium rate, if set by the government, will be sufficient to ban ownership by a lot of people.
-
So why shouldn’t liability insurance be mandatory for every firearm? And given that the per firearm cost is likely to be quite low, it would be simple enough to have an uninsured firearm rider that would go into a fund to cover damages caused by illegal firearms or when used by uninsured shooters.
Well, you assume incorrectly the premium cost is low. I don't think it is. And your first sentence goes to the heart of the desire of all statists: I wish do do something, so I'm going to make everybody else do so too.
I do so for the same reason I carry all sorts of insurance: I don't want to be sued into oblivion by an ambulance-chaser.
-
We don't know what the premium rate would be yet, do we? I maintain that premium rate, if set by the government, will be sufficient to ban ownership by a lot of people.
:facepalm2:
So nothing at all should be done because of the statistically improbable chance that you might not be able to afford it.
Intransigence simply leaves the field open to the leftists, and you will end up losing your guns to them.
-
:facepalm2:
So nothing at all should be done because of the statistically improbable chance that you might not be able to afford it.
Intransigence simply leaves the field open to the leftists, and you will end up losing your guns to them.
Your facepalm is well placed, sir. Your argument has jumped off the cliff again. You know, if you ignore the arguments placed for you by people you are arguing with, they're going to simply ignore you.
-
Well, you assume incorrectly the premium cost is low. I don't think it is. And your first sentence goes to the heart of the desire of all statists: I wish do do something, so I'm going to make everybody else do so too.
I do so for the same reason I carry all sorts of insurance: I don't want to be sued into oblivion by an ambulance-chaser.
On what basis do I assume the premium would be low if every firearm had to be insured? The cost would be a lot lower than it might be now, where insurance isn’t mandatory.
-
Your facepalm is well placed, sir. Your argument has jumped off the cliff again. You know, if you ignore the arguments placed for you by people you are arguing with, they're going to simply ignore you.
You haven’t made an argument. You’ve justified continued inaction in the face of a persistent problem: kids being gunned down in schools, by resort to a parade of speculative horribles, and have point blank refused to consider anything that might have put the slightest crimp in your latest birthday gift.
-
Your facepalm is well placed, sir. Your argument has jumped off the cliff again. You know, if you ignore the arguments placed for you by people you are arguing with, they're going to simply ignore you.
I don't know... but.... to me.... his argument makes absolutely NO sense, logically or otherwise. Nice that he's outting himself as part of the "shall/should definitely BE infringed upon" camp re: mandatory 'gun insurance', though.
-
Once they are stolen from me, my responsibility for how they are used is terminated.
Once they are REPORTED by you as stolen. If you were strictly liable for the medical bills and lost earnings of folks injured by your guns, you'd have the incentive to swiftly report a theft. That's a key benefit, I think, of a registration/insurance regime.
-
Right about now.... it appears that the FBI is complicit in the mass shootings. Nothing else explains why they continue, time after time.... incident after incident, to refuse to act, to investigate and to do their damned jobs. It can't be incompetence. Nobody is 'that' incompetent. If that were true, why would they all keep their jobs? No.... something else is afoot here. Something even more stinky than the Clinton/Gorelick "wall".
Exactly.
I used to think this was all tin-foil hat stuff.
However, there are Federal laws and that are not being enforced.
In this case, and in the Suderland Springs case (the last 2 large mass shootings), neither one of the individuals should have been able to legally purchase a gun.
In both cases, both did.
How?
Or better yet, why?
An internal type of "fast and furious" going on?
Some people may say, "So what, they could have used anything, and if they still wanted to use guns, they would have obtained them illegally".
Perhaps, but they didn't need to. They just went to local retailers and bought them.
My point is, like our current immigration laws, the current gun laws aren't being enforced.
Also, like our immigration laws, I think our guns laws aren't being enforced for political reasons.
-
I don't know... but.... to me.... his argument makes absolutely NO sense, logically or otherwise. Nice that he's outting himself as part of the "shall/should definitely BE infringed upon" camp re: mandatory 'gun insurance', though.
Why are you unwilling to take responsibility for the potential mayhem your guns could cause?
-
I don't know... but.... to me.... his argument makes absolutely NO sense, logically or otherwise. Nice that he's outting himself as part of the "shall/should definitely BE infringed upon" camp re: mandatory 'gun insurance', though.
Nice that you’re outing yourself as an accessory to murder.
-
So why shouldn’t liability insurance be mandatory for every firearm? And given that the per firearm cost is likely to be quite low, it would be simple enough to have an uninsured firearm rider that would go into a fund to cover damages caused by illegal firearms or when used by uninsured shooters.
There are said to be 300 million firearms in the US..
If it is insurance, registration, or something else, only some will observe the laws and regulations.
You can be certain the lawless will not. Certainly the lovely gangsters of Chicago, St. Louis etc. will not, so thousands of murders will go on without a hesitation.
Can't you picture Jamal: "Mom, can I borrow $100 to get insurance on my stolen gun?"
-
There are said to be 300 million firearms in the US..
If it is insurance, registration, or something else, only some will observe the laws and regulations.
You can be certain the lawless will not. Certainly the lovely gangsters of Chicago, St. Louis etc. will not, so thousands of murders will go on without a hesitation.
Can't you picture Jamal: "Mom, can I borrow $100 to get insurance on my stolen gun?"
Which is why your auto insurance policy carries an uninsured/underinsured motorist rider, which is not that expensive. A similar rider on mandatory firearm insurance would work just as well.
-
Intransigence simply leaves the field open to the leftists, and you will end up losing your guns to them.
They are going to have to kill an awful lot of American gun owners to achieve that.
-
On what basis do I assume the premium would be low if every firearm had to be insured? The cost would be a lot lower than it might be now, where insurance isn’t mandatory.
I maintain if the premium level is set by some other mechanism than Insurers normally used, IOW "government," that level will be set high enough to serve as a means of pricing lower income people who wish to follow the law out of the ability to own a firearm. Obamacare is a good example of this, it's collapsing because the government is attempting to control the premium structure for healthcare insurance. I seem to recall you were in favor of Obamacare, no?
A backdoor ban is still a ban. You'll have to find another gimmick to fool people, we're on to your "insurance" scheme.
-
They are going to have to kill an awful lot of American gun owners to achieve that.
:bigsilly:
So you say. You’ll be one of the first to chicken out and hand em over if it comes to it.
-
I maintain if the premium level is set by some other mechanism than Insurers normally used, IOW "government," that level will be set high enough to serve as a means of pricing lower income people who wish to follow the law out of the ability to own a firearm. Obamacare is a good example of this, it's collapsing because the government is attempting to control the premium structure for healthcare insurance. I seem to recall you were in favor of Obamacare, no?
A backdoor ban is still a ban. You'll have to find another gimmick to fool people, we're on to your "insurance" scheme.
You recall nothing of the sort.
You can maintain all you want, but I don’t recall mandatory auto insurance driving premiums up so high that only a few rich people can afford to own a car. In fact, I own a car myself, and I’m hardly rich.
-
Exactly.
I used to think this was all tin-foil hat stuff.
However, there are Federal laws and that are not being enforced.
In this case, and in the Suderland Springs case (the last 2 large mass shootings), neither one of the individuals should have been able to legally purchase a gun.
In both cases, both did.
How?
Or better yet, why?
An internal type of "fast and furious" going on?
Some people may say, "So what, they could have used anything, and if they still wanted to use guns, they would have obtained them illegally".
Perhaps, but they didn't need to. They just went to local retailers and bought them.
My point is, like our current immigration laws, the current gun laws aren't being enforced.
Also, like our immigration laws, I think our guns laws aren't being enforced for political reasons.
And in both cases.... ie refusal to enforce immigration laws and refusal to enforce gun laws already on the books (to get MORE gun laws on the books)...... the entity behind these refusals is the same..... the radical left in America ....America's enemy within (Democrats).
-
Nice that you’re outing yourself as an accessory to murder.
I have no idea what the hell you're blathering about.... not that that is an unusual scenario, mind you. Suffice to say.... it's typical of one of your posts. :laugh:
-
Which is why your auto insurance policy carries an uninsured/underinsured motorist rider, which is not that expensive. A similar rider on mandatory firearm insurance would work just as well.
What purpose does insurance provide? Does it prevent bad people from taking bad actions?
Or are you merely interested in more money to go through the hands of lawyers, bureaucrats, etc?
-
So you say. You’ll be one of the first to chicken out and hand em over if it comes to it.
You go think that.
-
They are going to have to kill an awful lot of American gun owners to achieve that.
Funny how he uses that word...."them". Especially since he's the one (not them) that is arguing for mandatory insurance for gun ownership.
-
What purpose does insurance provide? Does it prevent bad people from taking bad actions?
Or are you merely interested in more money to go through the hands of lawyers, bureaucrats, etc?
In this case (gun ownership) I posit that his interest is more along the lines of being for penalizing gun owners with yet more "government infringement upon that 2nd Amendment".
-
Why are you unwilling to take responsibility for the potential mayhem your guns could cause?
Why are you so obtuse? (Rhetorical question, of course)
-
You recall nothing of the sort.
You can maintain all you want, but I don’t recall mandatory auto insurance driving premiums up so high that only a few rich people can afford to own a car. In fact, I own a car myself, and I’m hardly rich.
You missed my point, so I'll give it another go:
Auto Insurance premiums are priced in an actuarially sound manner to keep pace with the competition. Obamacare is collapsing because it is not, it has subsidies based upon income level, and competition is screwed out of the marketplace leading to most areas of the country now having only one carrier on the O'care exchanges.
I maintain if government is put in charge of setting gun insurance premiums, the exact same, non actuarial system will be used to set premiums, and the outcome is likely to be a defacto ban on peoples right to keep and bear arms. Which is the lefts final goal.
-
Roamer brags about buying guns off the back of a truck. How do you trace ownership of such guns?
You don't.
I also buy power tools, knives, kitchen accessories, camping supplies, and dang near everything else off the back of a truck. I'm sitting here trying to think of what the last thing was that I actually walked into a store to buy... Other than groceries and hardware sundries, I can't come up with it...
You make it sound so nefarious , but 80% of it is me not being a big enough sucker to pay full retail for any damn thing. Heck, even most of my food never hit a shelf in it's life, and much of that which has, was still bought off the back a truck (Azure, etc).
But along with that, conveniently, comes anonymity.
It's a feature.
-
What purpose does insurance provide? Does it prevent bad people from taking bad actions?
Or are you merely interested in more money to go through the hands of lawyers, bureaucrats, etc?
I think his goal is to make insurance premiums a defacto ban on some people owning firearms. I've heard this floated by more liberal people without the savvy to keep that on the QT.
-
How about a courtesy ping for @roamer_1, you little popcorn fart? If you're going to badmouth my friend, have the guts to do it to his face.
:beer:
Thanks for the ping.
-
LOL. Roam will be on him like vaseline on Heath Ledger's chaps.
@Wingnut
Um... Thanks, sorta... I think.
:silly: :beer:
-
Why are you unwilling to take responsibility for the potential mayhem your guns could cause?
You know, you just gave up a very important part of your entire stance on gun control with that one sentence, right?
Look at the part I underlined. You still blame inanimate guns, not the evil minds controlling the trigger finger. You should put that in your sig line so people will know better than to argue with you on the subject. You're hopeless.
-
My point is that this IS a loophole, and guns bought off the back of trucks are essentially untraceable.
So are the ones I could make in the shop outback.
-
@Wingnut
Um... Thanks, sorta... I think.
:silly: :beer:
Like many of Wing's compliments, sometimes it's difficult to know if they really are compliments....
-
@Wingnut
Um... Thanks, sorta... I think.
:silly: :beer:
No problem...
I was going to say Assless chaps. But I was informed a while back by another Briefer that by their nature they come that way, so... that would have been redundant!
Giddy up cowboy!
-
I believe the sale of such guns are already illegal (I'm in CA so perhaps I'm wrong about this). Are you proposing we pass a law to register illegal guns?
No. Perfectly legal, except in that I may, from time to time, be purchasing stolen goods unawares... Not really my fault, and par for the course. I try to buy from decent looking people, and shy away from deals that look fishy.
-
Really? So you can guarantee 100% that the gun will never be stolen from you, and used in a crime. If you have the ability to predict the future with 100% accuracy, perhaps you should be trading stocks instead of wasting time here.
What possible difference would that make, except to make previous owners liable for the crime they did not commit? So someone steals my truck, goes on a drunken tear, and runs over some grandma, and that is MY FAULT?
Pure bullshit.
-
I'm heartbroken to learn my time here is wasted!
-
I'm heartbroken to learn my time here is wasted!
Never fear.... it's not.
How'd that coffeecake come out? (stomach growling as we speak)
-
Mandatory auto insurance deters the most irresponsible and destitute from owning cars, so the same would hold for firearms.
Geez... You need to get out more. MANY people are on the road in untitled uninsured cars. My boy sold a truck, and several years later, was called on the phone and instructed to get that truck off the side of the road, or it would be towed.... He was the last registered owner, and no paper, no insurance, was carried on that truck in the meantime.
And do you mean to say that the destitute do not have the right to defense?
-
I'm heartbroken to learn my time here is wasted!
#Me too.
-
So someone steals my truck, goes on a drunken tear, and runs over some grandma, and that is MY FAULT?
It should be. It's you're truck, you're responsible for it - until such time as you report it stolen.
-
As for the rest of the future, the only thing I'll guarantee with 100% accuracy at this moment is that in a few minutes I will go downstairs and bake a coffee cake.
Oh yeah... With walnuts and them little crumblies on top...
888high58888
-
How'd that coffeecake come out? (stomach growling as we speak)
It looks and smells wonderful. Resisting the urge to eat some before dinner.
-
So they can find deep pockets to sue if a weapon that once belonged to somebody wealthy gets used in a violent crime. Leftists can be pretty creative to finding ways to separate people from their money, in order to fuel the Leviathan.
Yeah right... the criminal walks away because he's been so misunderstood, and has had such a rough time... and some poor bastard gets sued out of existence because he had the misfortune to have owned something once upon a time...
Perfectly in tune with the liberal mindset...
-
It should be. It's you're truck, you're responsible for it - until such time as you report it stolen.
There is no law to report a vehicle stolen. You only do it because A) you want it back or B) you are filing a claim with the insurance company.
Your arguments are ridiculous because you have no idea what the hell you are talking about just like every other simple minded gun grabbing jackass in the country. That is why your plans and schemes fail to garner any support.
-
The fact that some poor people cannot afford to own a car due to the insurance requirement is unfortunate, but as a negative it is far outweighed by the costs of allowing people to drive without insurance. The same applies to guns.
So again= Poor people don't get to defend themselves. Hard scrabble hillbillies don't get to keep the skunk out of the chicken coop. Nor do they get to go hunting - their very subsistence.
Tough nuts, eh?
-
It should be. It's you're truck, you're responsible for it - until such time as you report it stolen.
Riiight..... (typical leftie idiocy). So if I'm sound asleep and someone steals my car out front and goes off and robs a bank, kills a few folks and totals the car while I'm asleep, it is somehow MY fault?
And you have the nerve to call someone (anyone) 'else' nuts. [shaking head in disbelief]
-
I'm concerned about gun violence generally, not just mass shootings. Registration and insurance will provide a means of assigning legal liability to the registered gun owner and encourage gun owners to transfer firearms lawfully and to swiftly report stolen guns. Insurance can also, as with auto insurance, encourage safe practices and create a fund for the compensation of victims of gun violence.
No it won't.
What it does is leave you a list of people to pay for a crime they didn't commit.
A transference of liability. Somebody's got to pay, dammit. Might as well be that eeeeevil previous owner who did not report to uncle nanny.
-
I'm heartbroken to learn my time here is wasted!
#Me too.
Pound Metoo.
-
There is no effective difference from the standpoint of lawful regulation, except that a "right" cannot be denied, at least not arbitrarily. But requiring you to register and insure your firearms doesn't deny you the ability to be "armed properly" to address an intruder. But self-defense isn't what bothers you - you are a gun hobbyist, who doesn't want to pay the cost to insure the dozens of weapons in your collection. Sorry, CL, some hobbies cost money. But the cost to insure the gun you need for self-defense cannot by definition be prohibitive, or it would infringe upon on the right itself.
And just who the hell are you to determine what I need for my own defense?
-
You are making the claim that because I have a collection there is no self-defense value to my weapons, therefore I am not deserving of the right to defend myself against predators.
You are full of it. You are, in fact, full of what you seem to be made of.
That's right.
-
Three little words, leftie. GFY. ^-^
...With a shovel.
:beer:
-
I maintain if government is put in charge of setting gun insurance premiums, the exact same, non actuarial system will be used to set premiums, and the outcome is likely to be a defacto ban on peoples right to keep and bear arms. Which is the lefts final goal.
Not just the "Left".
All Statists regardless of their particular flavor of Collectivism or Patriotic Obedience to the State, have as their goal - the disarming of a people they want to rule and control.
-
And just who the hell are you to determine what I need for my own defense?
I don't give a shit what you need for your own self-defense, you paranoid hillbilly. One gun or a hundred. Just so long as you register and insure 'em.
I know, I know. If they come for your guns, you'll kill 'em all. *****rollingeyes*****
-
You're a Commie Pinko Lib. Every post you make is a damn embarrassment of stupidity.
It low quality people like you who are making this country into a shithole.
Careful, you are simply illustrating yourself to be a selfish, absolutist gun fetishist in the mind of our resident Leftist.
-
No that is not what I am claiming. But you do not need a collection to "defend yourself against predators". Your collection is a luxury, and you fear having to insure your collection because it would cost you money. That's selfish.
You literally don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
You have no idea what it takes to defend oneself from predators... Nor provide from the land.
-
I know, I know. If they come for your guns, you'll kill 'em all.
@INVAR
I’d recommend the low deductible.
-
If you had legal liability unless and until you report the gun as stolen, you'd make it your reason to know.
I have guns I haven't even looked at for six months. How the hell do you propose that would be any different?
-
I don't give a shit what you need for your own self-defense, you paranoid hillbilly. One gun or a hundred. Just so long as you register and insure 'em.
Not gonna happen.
We refuse to comply with any further gun "laws" that restrict, regulate, license, infringe or abolish our right. We do not care if all 3 branches are in perfect uniparty agreement on doing so. We refuse to comply.
I know, I know. If they come for your guns, you'll kill 'em all.
Just like Lexington and Concord. Tyrants and their wannabe advocates have been warned in advance.
-
If there are 100 million firearms in the US, then a premium of $10 per firearm per year would provide a fund able to cover $1 billion in claims per year, every year. That’s not “prohibitively expensiveâ€.
You forget to add in the exorbitant cost of governmental (mis)management. Remember 'If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor'?
-
@INVAR
I’d recommend the low deductible.
IIRC ObamaCare was supposed to guarantee a "low deductible" as well as you keeping your doctor.
We saw how that ended up.
Nope. Not going to pay in order to be allowed to exercise a "right".
Because unlike our resident Leftist - I see Rights as inalienable and not privileges granted by the state.
-
So why shouldn’t liability insurance be mandatory for every firearm? And given that the per firearm cost is likely to be quite low, it would be simple enough to have an uninsured firearm rider that would go into a fund to cover damages caused by illegal firearms or when used by uninsured shooters.
Because the poor wouldn't do it anyway, nor the criminal.
-
(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28056129_2108801499340342_3777434750045882653_n.jpg?oh=1f3e07ade0233ea557b8ef62b5f38f3f&oe=5B0FB055)
-
Careful, you are simply illustrating yourself to be a selfish, absolutist gun fetishist in the mind of our resident Leftist.
Well to be truthful I am a gun fetishist. I pay a woman $200 a week to pistol whip me while German military march music plays on a phonograph.
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1WfmzKFXXXXa3XXXXq6xXFXXXX/green-german-military-uniform-costumes-for-women-sexy-military-clothing-military-suit.jpg)
-
I do so for the same reason I carry all sorts of insurance: I don't want to be sued into oblivion by an ambulance-chaser.
I am the other way around. I don't 'own' nothing. Even my property is in a trust. 25 years in business educated me well.
-
Why are you unwilling to take responsibility for the potential mayhem your guns could cause?
BECAUSE THE GUNS ARE INCAPABLE OF CAUSING MAYHEM.
Guns don't cause mayhem. People do.
-
Well to be truthful I am a gun fetishist. I pay a woman $200 a week to pistol whip me while German military march music plays on a phonograph.
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1WfmzKFXXXXa3XXXXq6xXFXXXX/green-german-military-uniform-costumes-for-women-sexy-military-clothing-military-suit.jpg)
I am willing to bet you do goose-schtupping better than any other paying John out there Frank.
Kudos to your dedication to the fathered-land and your ability to keep your squeals timed with the beats of both the band and the gun.
Do you 'salute' with both hands cuffed behind your back too? What dedication!
-
Well to be truthful I am a gun fetishist. I pay a woman $200 a week to pistol whip me while German military march music plays on a phonograph.
Is your safe word Kartoffelpuffer?
-
Well to be truthful I am a gun fetishist. I pay a woman $200 a week to pistol whip me while German military march music plays on a phonograph.
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1WfmzKFXXXXa3XXXXq6xXFXXXX/green-german-military-uniform-costumes-for-women-sexy-military-clothing-military-suit.jpg)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GielMXWQlbw&ab_channel=Carl%27sFolkClub#)
-
It should be. It's you're truck, you're responsible for it - until such time as you report it stolen.
BULLSHIT.
I have two trucks on a property I haven't been to in almost a year. How the hell am I supposed to know if they've been stolen or not?
-
It looks and smells wonderful. Resisting the urge to eat some before dinner.
In my case, that would BE dinner. :whistle:
-
Is your safe word Kartoffelpuffer?
It was until I had a session cut short from me sneezing.
-
I don't give a shit what you need for your own self-defense, you paranoid hillbilly. One gun or a hundred. Just so long as you register and insure 'em.
You know, of course, that will never, ever happen.
-
You missed my point, so I'll give it another go:
Auto Insurance premiums are priced in an actuarially sound manner to keep pace with the competition. Obamacare is collapsing because it is not, it has subsidies based upon income level, and competition is screwed out of the marketplace leading to most areas of the country now having only one carrier on the O'care exchanges.
I maintain if government is put in charge of setting gun insurance premiums, the exact same, non actuarial system will be used to set premiums, and the outcome is likely to be a defacto ban on peoples right to keep and bear arms. Which is the lefts final goal.
And as usual, the left (which I fondly call the idiot left) is counting on us being stupid enough to not get that. They always "think" they are so much brighter than anyone else, dontcha know. We've got their number good & plenty.... especially here on this forum. And that must really tick them off....hehe.
-
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GielMXWQlbw&ab_channel=Carl%27sFolkClub#)
Fun Fact: I think Mary Hopkins was the first artist to sign with the Beetles Apple label. A lot of good that did her.
-
You know, of course, that will never, ever happen.
Any more government (leftist) infringement upon my right to gun ownership..... and I will not comply. That's a constant in this universe.
-
BULLSHIT.
I have two trucks on a property I haven't been to in almost a year. How the hell am I supposed to know if they've been stolen or not?
That's why it would be better if you were living next door to Jizzhead in a Soviet style high rise and taking public transport to your govt' assigned job. Govt' officials would be monitoring you for your safety so no need for guns.
See how it would make your life so much easier.
-
Any more government (leftist) infringement upon my right to gun ownership..... and I will not comply. That's a constant in this universe.
Anymore? Heck I don't comply NOW. Haven't complied in decades, but for the sake of TWO guns that I actually bought over a counter.
Register and insure? Fat damn chance on that one.
-
That's why it would be better if you were living next door to Jizzhead in a Soviet style high rise and taking public transport to your govt' assigned job. Govt' officials would be monitoring you for your safety so no need for guns.
See how it would make your life so much easier.
:terror:
No thanks. I would be more inclined to drift off into the sticks and see how long it took them to dig me out.
-
Is your safe word Kartoffelpuffer?
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
-
Fun Fact: I think Mary Hopkins was the first artist to sign with the Beetles Apple label. A lot of good that did her.
Well, those were the days.....
-
Fun Fact: I think Mary Hopkins was the first artist to sign with the Beetles Apple label. A lot of good that did her.
Who was the first non-British artist to sign with Apple?
-
Anymore? Heck I don't comply NOW. Haven't complied in decades, but for the sake of TWO guns that I actually bought over a counter.
Register and insure? Fat damn chance on that one.
Good for you. The only reason they want to "register" guns is for confiscation, obviously. Hell no to that. But we know they won't stop trying to foist their tyrannical stupidity upon law-abiding citizens....
until they are no longer "law-abiding".
-
Good for you. The only reason they want to "register" guns is for confiscation, obviously. Hell no to that. But we know they won't stop trying to foist their tyrannical stupidity upon law-abiding citizens....
until they are no longer "law-abiding".
Government and its Alphabets have been proven to be no longer "Law-abiding".
Why should we little people abide by their "laws"?
Making everyone a criminal is the job of Government, exempting Illegal Mexican squatters, Muslim refugees and Leftist politicians. They are exempt from the laws our government imposes.
-
Making everyone a criminal is the job of Government, exempting Illegal Mexican squatters, Muslim refugees and Leftist politicians. They are exempt from the laws our government imposes.
There are so many local, state and federal laws and regulations, we all probably violate a dozen a day without knowing it.
-
There are so many local, state and federal laws and regulations, we all probably violate a dozen a day without knowing it.
There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.
-
Who was the first non-British artist to sign with Apple?
I thought is was something weird like Sanatra or Sammy Davis, but I could be wrong.
-
I thought is was something weird like Sanatra or Sammy Davis, but I could be wrong.
The Jacksons 5 minus 4.
-
The Jacksons 5 minus 4.
Looks like it was either Billy Preston or James Taylor. Considering Billy played back up on some Beatles stuff, I would guess he was #1 gringo on their list.
-
Looks like it was either Billy Preston or James Taylor. Considering Billy played back up on some Beatles stuff, I would guess he was #1 gringo on their list.
Don't see Mr Carly Simon as an Apple artist.
Maybe @EasyAce would know.
-
Government and its Alphabets have been proven to be no longer "Law-abiding".
Why should we little people abide by their "laws"?
Making everyone a criminal is the job of Government, exempting Illegal Mexican squatters, Muslim refugees and Leftist politicians. They are exempt from the laws our government imposes.
Oh yes. Every Democrat is exempt from having to follow the same laws they expect us to follow. Cause they're such "special" people. We, on the other hand, are not (apparently) special.
-
There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.
Zactly.
Note that currently, government is only enforcing laws against anyone on the right.... apparently excluding school shooters, illegals, Democrats, anarchists, BLMs, and other selective "groups" that the left reveres and holds above the law.
-
Oh yes. Every Democrat is exempt from having to follow the same laws they expect us to follow. Cause they're such "special" people. We, on the other hand, are not (apparently) special.
Some animals are more equal than others.
-
There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.
@Cyber Liberty
"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any
government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
......just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- p.411,
Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
-
@Cyber Liberty
That's the one! Thanks!
-
(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28056129_2108801499340342_3777434750045882653_n.jpg?oh=1f3e07ade0233ea557b8ef62b5f38f3f&oe=5B0FB055)
Now, come on.
Most of the time, school shooters have one reason, and one alone, for choosing the school they shoot up: it's the one they attend(ed).
-
Don't see Mr Carly Simon as an Apple artist.
Maybe @EasyAce would know.
Welp, you'd be wrong.
(http://www.capitol6000.com/images/images_apple/1805b.jpg)
-
On what basis do I assume the premium would be low if every firearm had to be insured? The cost would be a lot lower than it might be now, where insurance isn’t mandatory.
How would this insurance stop even one shooting, restore one dead person to life, or undo the damage done by criminals and why should law abiding people have to pay for it? You are advocating penalizing those who have done no wrong for the criminal actions of those who have. Unlike drivers who have "accidents" pretty frequently, few gun owners do. There are two separate groups involved: those with criminal intent who do the vast majority of damage with firearms and who will not comply anyway, and those who observe the law and are careful not to injure others (something that is far easier than it seems by simply following a few common sense rules).
Treat all firearms as loaded, at all times.
Check/clear/open the action of every firearm you are handed or pick up and make sure it is not loaded. Still observe the other rules.
Never point the muzzle in the direction of anything you do not wish to shoot.
Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
Be aware of what is in the background, behind your target.
While firearms safeties are a wonderful additional device to prevent discharging a firearm without intent, never trust them to keep a firearm from being discharged. Only following the above rules will prevent injury.
These rules were ingrained in us at an early age, and habit by the time we hunted, which for most of us was before our tenth birthday.
-
Welp, you'd be wrong.
(http://www.capitol6000.com/images/images_apple/1805b.jpg)
Ah Geez. Rotten to the apple core
-
Ah Geez. Rotten to the apple core
My research shows that The Beatles are the ones who found Jimmy and gave him his first contract. Based on that information, I don't feel so bad that two of them were eventually killed. Karma is a bitch.
-
Why are you unwilling to take responsibility for the potential mayhem your guns could cause?
Because my guns, in my hands and ownership/control will not cause any. I am definitely not willing to be punished in any shape or form for the criminal behaviour of other people. In fact, I have a Right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
That doesn't mean the legislature just gets to keep passing laws until they have one I am in violation of in order to take my stuff, either.
Or maybe we should insure water. Because, as everyone knows, water is dangerous stuff. People drown in it every year. People even drink too much, and as for mayhem, how do you know it wasn't one of your water molecules that contributed to the Mayhem in South Texas and other places this past year? I think we' d better insure water, because it has created mayhem since the Deluge.
-
I maintain if the premium level is set by some other mechanism than Insurers normally used, IOW "government," that level will be set high enough to serve as a means of pricing lower income people who wish to follow the law out of the ability to own a firearm. Obamacare is a good example of this, it's collapsing because the government is attempting to control the premium structure for healthcare insurance. I seem to recall you were in favor of Obamacare, no?
A backdoor ban is still a ban. You'll have to find another gimmick to fool people, we're on to your "insurance" scheme.
Especially after the last insurance scheme that was foisted on America.
-
There's a soliloquy from Atlas Shrugs that nails it, about creating so many laws that everybody's a lawbreaker, then the government can control everybody by selectively enforcing those laws.
I think that was in the back of my mind as I was making the comment. Thanks for clarifying my muddled thoughts!
-
Legally owned guns are already traceable through their serial number by the ATF (and only through the ATF). Therefore your suggestion to register firearms serves no purpose other than to make it easier for eventual confiscation.
I'm way behind you all in this discussion, but I don't want to forget to ask this question.
Can the ATF trace a gun to its owner? Or just to the store that sold it? Ok, I found the answer further down.
But doesn't this actually qualify as a type of "registration"?
-
If somebody loses an eye because of my negligence with my firearm, they are of course covered under the policy that I carry, same as if I accidentally hit them with my 1968 Tigers World Series autographed baseball bat. As for what happens if somebody does damage after stealing one of my weapons, I encourage you to go back and re-read the last sentence of the post you quoted.
I'm still trying to catch up. But since your guns are insured, would you say the cost was outrageously expensive? Do you think you pay a fair price for your insurance?
And why wouldn't guns be insured by insurance companies using actuarial tables, just like cars and homes are?
-
I'm still trying to catch up. But since your guns are insured, would you say the cost was outrageously expensive? Do you think you pay a fair price for your insurance?
And why wouldn't guns be insured by insurance companies using actuarial tables, just like cars and homes are?
They are. It's insurance to cover loss if stolen or destroyed (like in a fire). Premiums are based on cash value in case of a loss. The firearms are actually easier to insure than the tons of Baseball collectables we have, because the value of autographed baseball bats is more difficult to assess. What the gun-grabbers are talking about when it comes to "insurance" is insuring for future "societal damage" caused by future misuse of the article after the theft...like paying off a grieving family because the doper that ransacked my house made off with a 9mm handgun and shot somebody. There is no correlation between the cash value of the gun and the money they'd like to collect from an insurance company. The doper may steal a $300 gun and cause the same deaths as if he had stolen a $3,000 gun.
But, grabbers want to stop people from spotting that and tripping up their attempt to socialize a crime, so they pretend it's the same thing as why I pay to protect my firearms. What they mean by "insurance" and what the rest of us mean ain't the same thing. Instead they say, "That mean Cyber Liberty will insure his own weapons, but doesn't care if others do too." I can only insure to cover my loss, and that responsibility stops the moment the doper gets clear of my house with my property.
-
I'm way behind you all in this discussion, but I don't want to forget to ask this question.
Can the ATF trace a gun to its owner? Or just to the store that sold it? Ok, I found the answer further down.
But doesn't this actually qualify as a type of "registration"?
You are very observant: They claim they want registration to track weapons used in crimes, but the dirty little fact of the matter is they can already do that. They want a list of who has what so they know where to look when the time comes to round them up,without have to deal with silly little niceties like warrants.
-
You are very observant: They claim they want registration to track weapons used in crimes, but the dirty little fact of the matter is they can already do that. They want a list of who has what so they know where to look when the time comes to round them up,without have to deal with silly little niceties like warrants.
Red Dawn demonstrated this in 1984....
! No longer available (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mWKqhLzJQo#)
-
You are very observant: They claim they want registration to track weapons used in crimes, but the dirty little fact of the matter is they can already do that. They want a list of who has what so they know where to look when the time comes to round them up,without have to deal with silly little niceties like warrants.
Do you think the dealers' serial number-owner records are overreach? Or ar you all ok with that kind of "registration"?
-
Red Dawn demonstrated this in 1984....
! No longer available (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mWKqhLzJQo#)
Looooove that movie! Filmed in NM!!!
-
They are. It's insurance to cover loss if stolen or destroyed (like in a fire). Premiums are based on cash value in case of a loss. The firearms are actually easier to insure than the tons of Baseball collectables we have, because the value of autographed baseball bats is more difficult to assess. What the gun-grabbers are talking about when it comes to "insurance" is insuring for future "societal damage" caused by future misuse of the article after the theft...like paying off a grieving family because the doper that ransacked my house made off with a 9mm handgun and shot somebody. There is no correlation between the cash value of the gun and the money they'd like to collect from an insurance company. The doper may steal a $300 gun and cause the same deaths as if he had stolen a $3,000 gun.
But, grabbers want to stop people from spotting that and tripping up their attempt to socialize a crime, so they pretend it's the same thing as why I pay to protect my firearms. What they mean by "insurance" and what the rest of us mean ain't the same thing. Instead they say, "That mean Cyber Liberty will insure his own weapons, but doesn't care if others do too." I can only insure to cover my loss, and that responsibility stops the moment the doper gets clear of my house with my property.
A follow up: did you say that your guns were also insured against accidental injury, in the same way that your baseball bat is if it hits someone? I wasn't sure if that meant homeowners insurance or something else.
-
A follow up: did you say that your guns were also insured against accidental injury, in the same way that your baseball bat is if it hits someone? I wasn't sure if that meant homeowners insurance or something else.
Oh yes, because LOTS of people carry liability insurance for their baseball bats. One never knows when the baseball bat might just fling itself at someone's head out of the garage.
*****rollingeyes*****
The idea to require that kind of insurance to own a gun is just as silly and stupid.
-
A follow up: did you say that your guns were also insured against accidental injury, in the same way that your baseball bat is if it hits someone? I wasn't sure if that meant homeowners insurance or something else.
The bats and guns are in a rider on my homeowner policy. If I injure somebody with them accidentally (not as a result of any deliberate action) there is a claim to be made.
-
Oh yes, because LOTS of people carry liability insurance for their baseball bats. One never knows when the baseball bat might just fling itself at someone's head out of the garage.
*****rollingeyes*****
The idea to require that kind of insurance to own a gun is just as silly and stupid.
The "insurance" the grabbers in this thread have been suggesting is nothing like the insurance I presently carry, in fact it isn't offered. They want a pool of money (paid by me, held by the gummint, I assume) that can be tapped to pay off people who are hurt or killed as a result of a thief stealing one of my weapons. Quite a different animal they call "insurance" to blur the lines of the discussion to cast gun owners in a bad light. That they use children as pawns in their crusade is the least surprising aspect of all this.
The only reason my baseball bats are in the rider I carry is because they have value beyond what you'd pay by going down to Dick's and buying one off a shelf. Accidental damage coverage is incidental, because it's highly unlikely I'd even take one out of it's display case, let alone stroke it across somebody's lip.
-
Do you think the dealers' serial number-owner records are overreach? Or ar you all ok with that kind of "registration"?
Yes, I do, and I'm NOT OK with that. The model and serial number of the firearm is irrelevant to my being qualified to purchase it. I would be just as barred from owning a .357 revolver as I would be to own an AR-15 or .22. I've never liked that I've had to put that information on the Federal forms to make a purchase.
The purpose is tracability in case a crime is committed down the road, and has been stated, the Police can already get that information, but they have to produce a warrant to get it. I have yet had it adequately explained to me why they need to know who bought a weapon in the first place, unless there's a case to be made that person was complicit in the crime, and not merely a crime victim themselves when the weapon was stolen from them.
-
The "insurance" the grabbers in this thread have been suggesting is nothing like the insurance I presently carry, in fact it isn't offered. They want a pool of money (paid by me, held by the gummint, I assume) that can be tapped to pay off people who are hurt or killed as a result of a thief stealing one of my weapons. Quite a different animal they call "insurance" to blur the lines of the discussion to cast gun owners in a bad light. That they use children as pawns in their crusade is the least surprising aspect of all this.
@LauraTXNM , a rough analogy to the sort of insurance I have in mind is PIP (Personal Injury Protection) insurance, which is a mandatory extension of car insurance in many states. It covers medical expenses and, in many cases, lost wages as the result of injuries suffered in a car accident. It is sometimes called "no-fault" because it is agnostic of who is at fault in the accident.
As applied to guns, the idea is for a gun owner to register and insure his guns, with the insurance available to pay the medical bills and lost wages of a victim of violence committed while using an insured gun. The insurance would pay off if the act of violence occurs while the gun is covered by the insurance - and such coverage would remain in force until such time as the gun's ownership is lawfully transferred, the gun is lawfully disposed of, or the gun is reported stolen to the police. The incentive is therefore in place for a gun owner to keep weapons secured from unauthorized use, to effect only "official" and traceable dispositions of the guns he owns (that is, not selling the thing out of the back of a truck but rather using a broker that upon resale will run the requisite background checks), and to promptly report stolen guns. Otherwise, his insurance policy will pay off and his premiums will go up.
The idea isn't to "cast gun owners in a bad light" or to make it too expensive for them to afford to defend themselves. Rather, the idea is to encourage gun owners to be responsible, to secure their guns against unauthorized use (like Adam Lanza taking his mom's guns), to effect only lawful transfers, and to report stolen weapons. Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?
-
Otherwise, his insurance policy will pay off and his premiums will go up.
Oh. The premiums on the insurance the owner didn't have in the first place will go up. That's well thought out.
Maybe you should focus on your job of squeegeeing windshields in rush hour traffic and leave the thinking to people with brains.
-
Oh. The premiums on the insurance the owner didn't have in the first place will go up. That's well thought out.
Maybe you should focus on your job of squeegeeing windshields in rush hour traffic and leave the thinking to people with brains.
You're awful generous this morning Frank.
I think we should impose insurance mandates on squeegees to cover the costs of brainless dolt road pizzas.
-
You're awful generous this morning Frank.
I think we should impose insurance mandates on squeegees to cover the costs of brainless dolt road pizzas.
I think they are unionized. The Squeegee lobby will oppose it.
-
Oh. The premiums on the insurance the owner didn't have in the first place will go up. That's well thought out.
If you choose to own a useful but dangerous implement, then take legal responsibility for the harm it may cause. Just like with your car. Register it, insure it, keep it secure, and dispose of it lawfully. Why is that such a terrible imposition?
-
As applied to guns, the idea is for a gun owner to register and insure his guns...
Never going to happen.
There will be massive non-compliance on such a mandate on a scale the world has never before witnessed.
Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?
Does anyone here really think you are anything but a Leftist advocate for tyranny?
-
The idea isn't to "cast gun owners in a bad light" or to make it too expensive for them to afford to defend themselves. Rather, the idea is to encourage gun owners to be responsible, to secure their guns against unauthorized use (like Adam Lanza taking his mom's guns), to effect only lawful transfers, and to report stolen weapons. Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?
The declared intent is never the outcome. The end result will be to enact defacto registration (which seems to be the goal of every one of these schemes) and denial of firearms to people below the threshold of affordability. I am of the belief it's immoral to do anything to deny people the right to defend themselves, and this artificial creation of cost and registration is part of that.
Jazz, you have sacrificed your position of authority when you admitted yesterday you think the guns are the evil, and not the minds behind the trigger. You are no better than the propagandists at CNN who set up the booby-trapped "town hall" the other day.
-
Looooove that movie! Filmed in NM!!!
@LauraTXNM
Yes - last summer, I drove through the back roads of western KS and OK to get over to Raton. I wanted to see Johnson Mesa, then continue north on I-25 into Colorado. Had to stop off the freeway due to one of the most intense thunder storms I've ever been in while driving. The lightning was incredible.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dNiTtZsfa2Y/TOgdDFK6TpI/AAAAAAAAK-o/A19NnzMnNvs/s1600/pat.jpg)
"I think guns should be insured or confiscated by the govt'. I also think people should get a living wage for squeegee work."
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dNiTtZsfa2Y/TOgdDFK6TpI/AAAAAAAAK-o/A19NnzMnNvs/s1600/pat.jpg)
"I think guns should be insured or confiscated by the govt'. I also think people should get a living wage for squeegee work."
That guy scratched my windshield with his worn out Squeegee. I told him he better have Insurance for that thin.
-
If you choose to own a useful but dangerous implement, then take legal responsibility for the harm it may cause. Just like with your car. Register it, insure it, keep it secure, and dispose of it lawfully. Why is that such a terrible imposition?
After you personally register and acquire specialty liability insurance for your cutlery, flatware, cast iron skillets, sewing needles, scissors, lawn equipment, insecticides, fertilizers, prescription medicines, pencils, rope, string, wire, pencils......... - er actually EVERYTHING you own that can be used to harm another life form or cause mayhem to an individual - and provide proof publicly that you have complied with your own suggestion - THEN, and only then
... will we all stop laughing long enough to consider that wha you have said and done is truly a dedication to lunacy.
-
The declared intent is never the outcome. The end result will be to enact defacto registration (which seems to be the goal of every one of these schemes) and denial of firearms to people below the threshold of affordability. I am of the belief it's immoral to do anything to deny people the right to defend themselves, and this artificial creation of cost and registration is part of that.
Jazz, you have sacrificed your position of authority when you admitted yesterday you think the guns are the evil, and not the minds behind the trigger. You are no better than the propagandists at CNN who set up the booby-trapped "town hall" the other day.
Oh stop it with the idiotic paranoia. No one's come to confiscate your cars. Cars aren't evil, guns aren't evil. Cars are potentially dangerous, and the community demands you register and insure them. Why not the same for guns? The focus of the insurance is different to be sure, but conceptually the intent is to encourage responsible ownership and lawful transfers/dispositions. NOT confiscation. Why is it illegitimate in your eyes for the community to demand that gun owners act responsibly? This is why I keep coming back to the charge that, fundamentally, this is about selfishness.
-
After you personally register and acquire specialty liability insurance for your cutlery, flatware, cast iron skillets, sewing needles, scissors, lawn equipment, insecticides, fertilizers, prescription medicines, pencils, rope, string, wire, pencils......... - er actually EVERYTHING you own that can be used to harm another life form or cause mayhem to an individual - and provide proof publicly that you have complied with your own suggestion - THEN, and only then
... will we all stop laughing long enough to consider that what you have said and done is truly a dedication to lunacy.
Hey, I want serial numbers on all those implements so we can trace them back to the purchaser in case some injury occurs...
-
If you choose to own a useful but dangerous implement, then take legal responsibility for the harm it may cause. Just like with your car. Register it, insure it, keep it secure, and dispose of it lawfully. Why is that such a terrible imposition?
IT can't cause any harm.
IT is an inanimate object.
-
Oh stop it with the idiotic paranoia. No one's come to confiscate your cars. Cars aren't evil, guns aren't evil. Cars are potentially dangerous, and the community demands you register and insure them. Why not the same for guns? The focus of the insurance is different to be sure, but conceptually the intent is to encourage responsible ownership and lawful transfers/dispositions. NOT confiscation. Why is it illegitimate in your eyes for the community to demand that gun owners act responsibly? This is why I keep coming back to the charge that, fundamentally, this is about selfishness.
No one's come to confiscate your cars. [sic]
Another sunrise, another repetition of The Big Lie.
-
After you personally register and acquire specialty liability insurance for your cutlery, flatware, cast iron skillets, sewing needles, scissors, lawn equipment, insecticides, fertilizers, prescription medicines, pencils, rope, string, wire, pencils......... - er actually EVERYTHING you own that can be used to harm another life form or cause mayhem to an individual -
Guns are uniquely dangerous. Their purpose is to kill.
Enjoy your hobby. Just be responsible.
-
IT can't cause any harm.
IT is an inanimate object.
Neither can a car. But the community still insists you register and insure your car, if you want to use it for its intended purpose. The same should be required of guns.
-
No one's come to confiscate your cars. [sic]
Another sunrise, another repetition of The Big Lie.
Except it is not a lie. I can own as many cars as I want, fast ones, big ones, expensive ones. They are all potentially dangerous, so I am obliged to carry PIP. The community demands I take responsibility for my choices. That is perfectly reasonable.
-
Except it is not a lie. I can own as many cars as I want, fast ones, big ones, expensive ones. They are all potentially dangerous, so I am obliged to carry PIP. The community demands I take responsibility for my choices. That is perfectly reasonable.
You keep pushing this lie. You are not required to carry that at all to own a car. A car is also not specifically protected by our constitution......you ignorant Left wing slut.
-
Guns are uniquely dangerous. Their purpose is to kill.
I can kill with a piece of string.
Every sort of trap is made to kill.
Poisons are made to kill.
There is nothing unique about guns... In fact, guns are far better than the above, because guns kill selectively, while all the rest (including the string) do not. Yet all of the above, are unlicensed, easily acquired, and largely unregulated.
-
You keep pushing this lie. You are not required to carry that at all to own a car. A car is also not specifically protected by our constitution......you ignorant Left wing slut.
You are required to insure a car used for its intended purpose - driving it on public roads. The insurance requirement for guns would be similar. Disable a firearm so it can't be fired and you wouldn't need to insure it.
And I am advocating nothing that would violate the Constitution.
-
I can kill with a piece of string.
Every sort of trap is made to kill.
Poisons are made to kill.
There is nothing unique about guns... In fact, guns are far better than the above, because guns kill selectively, while all the rest (including the string) do not. Yet all of the above, are unlicensed, easily acquired, and largely unregulated.
Yet you claim their uniqueness under the Constitution. You can't have it both ways. Guns are killing devices, no more, no less. Own as many as you want, take 'em to bed with you at night if that's what gives you wood. All the community demands is that you use and transfer them responsibly, and be legally liable for the harm they may cause - after all, they're in your care.
-
@LauraTXNM , Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?
@Jazzhead
I think making victims of one crime responsible for the costs of a crime committed by someone else is unreasonable to the extreme. If a kid steals my car and kills someone while running from police is the car owner held responsible?
-
You are required to insure a car used for its intended purpose - driving it on public roads. The insurance requirement for guns would be similar. Disable a firearm so it can't be fired and you wouldn't need to insure it.
And I am advocating nothing that would violate the Constitution.
Bullshit.
Know in advance, it does not matter what you and your anti-gun hordes manage to get passed as policy or "law".
Responsible Gun owners who understand history are not going to comply. We will refuse.
And if you and the agents of the state you empower come to impose your will upon us by force (that means using guns to put to our heads) you will have that war I told you that you are buying.
-
All the community demands is that you use and transfer them responsibly, and be legally liable for the harm they may cause - after all, they're in your care.
Take your commie community crap and shove it up your hinnie.
We do not care what the "community" of commie leftists like you demand.
Make gun owners outlaws, and we promise we will ACT like outlaws and live up to the charges.
We will refuse you and defy you.
You need to ask yourself how much blood you are willing to spill to make your suggestions a reality.
-
Yet you claim their uniqueness under the Constitution. You can't have it both ways. Guns are killing devices, no more, no less. Own as many as you want, take 'em to bed with you at night if that's what gives you wood. All the community demands is that you use and transfer them responsibly, and be legally liable for the harm they may cause - after all, they're in your care.
I promise I will be legally responsible for the harm I may cause. I cannot force someone else to be legally responsible for the harm they may cause.
The gun does not cause harm. It just lies there.
Geez.
-
Yet you claim their uniqueness under the Constitution. You can't have it both ways. Guns are killing devices, no more, no less. Own as many as you want, take 'em to bed with you at night if that's what gives you wood. All the community demands is that you use and transfer them responsibly, and be legally liable for the harm they may cause - after all, they're in your care.
@Jazzhead
No, the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights determined arms were unique and needed to be protected.
The 'community' isn't demanding anything except the right to defend themselves, a few radicals with a totalitarian agenda are flapping their gums using money from people like Soros.
-
You are required to insure a car used for its intended purpose - driving it on public roads. The insurance requirement for guns would be similar. Disable a firearm so it can't be fired and you wouldn't need to insure it.
And I am advocating nothing that would violate the Constitution.
What you are proposing is stupid just like all your other bullshit you post here you Commie Lib.
So this jackass who shot up the school has his gun insured before he starts killing kids. Is that going to make him think twice before he pulls the trigger because his premiums might go up? Am I going to have to pay higher premiums because law enforcement allowed this guy to go and shoot up a school?
Since your obtuse Kasich style Leftist mind keeps pushing this insurance bullshit, what am I getting in return for my gun ownership premiums? If some low level thinker like you backs into my car the insurance company pays for the damage to my car. What services am I getting for paying my gun premiums? If it is just to cover damages for other gun owners killing people then it isn't insurance. It's an effing TAX.
-
Yet you claim their uniqueness under the Constitution. You can't have it both ways.
They are unique under the constitution, along with any other weapon. They are not unique in their availability and unlicensed status, nor their ability to kill. Many many things can kill, and many, many can do way more damage than a gun - even a full auto gun. Propane as an instance - It would take nothing to create a murderous weapon out of a propane tank. Cheaper and more effective than a rifle could ever be. Explosives and hideous poisons can be made from normal household chemicals. Knives, bludgeons, even fists. Where does this chickenshit nonsense stop?
Guns are killing devices, no more, no less.
So are many other things - That was my point.
Own as many as you want, take 'em to bed with you at night if that gives you wood. All the community demands is that you use and transfer them responsibly, and be legally liable for the harm they may cause - after all, they're in your care.
YOUR community can demand whatever it wants. You are IMPOSING your community upon mine. My community, and my county, and my state know what they want wrt this issue, and it ain't what you want at all.
I do use and transfer them responsibly, according to my community, county, and state. And my only liability and responsibility is when MY finger is on the trigger.
You can take your federal nanny state bullshit and shove it where the sun don't shine.
-
@Jazzhead
No, the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights determined arms were unique and needed to be protected.
The 'community' isn't demanding anything except the right to defend themselves, a few radicals with a totalitarian agenda are flapping their gums using money from people like Soros.
Our resident anti-rights Leftist simply fears and does not trust you with liberty.
He fears your right to defend yourself. He despises you operating your business according to your faith you do not cater to perverts. He is offended when you exercise your right to speak or write what you think.
This is why he continually wants to empower the government to *reasonably regulate* what privileges he will allow the government to allow you and only after you follow prescribed government license requirements before you are permitted to exercise your rights.
-
You are required to insure a car used for its intended purpose - driving it on public roads. The insurance requirement for guns would be similar. Disable a firearm so it can't be fired and you wouldn't need to insure it.
And I am advocating nothing that would violate the Constitution.
The 2A says you have the right to bear arms. That can be a wide variety of items, including the bow and arrow, knives, swords, etc...
Should those require insurance, as well?
-
The 2A says you have the right to bear arms. That can be a wide variety of items, including the bow and arrow, knives, swords, etc...
Should those require insurance, as well?
Not in my view. The problem with guns is partly that so many hundreds of millions of them are out there, with many changing ownership by "underground" means. A system of registration and insurance would, just as it does with cars, ensure that serial numbers are associated with legally-responsible owners, and that transfers and dispositions are documented and take place lawfully.
Your statement is intriguing, though. I've assumed that arms mean firearms. But if arms are more broadly defined, that suggests that a single category of "arms" could be banned entirely and still not infringe on the right. Could guns be banned because folks can always use swords to defend themselves? Obviously that makes little sense in the context of the collective right of defense associated with the "well-regulated militia", but what about in terms of the natural, individual right to self-defense (the one I believe exists, like the right to privacy, in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution but not in the Second Amendment)?
Obviously, Justice Scalia would disagree. Heller involved an effective ban on handguns, and Scalia's concern was that one's natural right to defend person, home and property simply couldn't be effectively exercised without the ability to use a concealable handgun. Knives, swords and baseball bats signed by MLB stars are not effective substitutes.
I don't think the Second Amendment is of much practical utility to the average gunowner - I don't think it is the source of his Constitutional right. I think the Constitution's protection of the natural rights of man - as acknowledged, finally, after two centuries by the SCOTUS - is the source of the right, and creates the limits by which government can restrict and regulate the right.
-
I don't think the Second Amendment is of much practical utility to the average gunowner - I don't think it is the source of his Constitutional right.
I'm sensing a recurring theme here.
I think the Constitution's protection of the natural rights of man - as acknowledged, finally, after two centuries by the SCOTUS - is the source of the right, and creates the limits by which government can restrict and regulate the right.
20,000 laws already on the books regulating the rights granted to us under the 2nd Amendment.
How about we enforce the ones on the books before we start down the garden path towards confiscation and subversion of the 2A that you are so cheerfully advocating?
Why would that be so difficult?
What is one more ineffective law actually going to accomplish?
-
What is one more ineffective law actually going to accomplish?
It will make him *feel* safer, and he will know he is one step closer to confiscation and the eradication of a people to have arms to defend themselves against people like him.
-
Not in my view. The problem with guns is partly that so many hundreds of millions of them are out there, with many changing ownership by "underground" means.
The very same could be said of knives, and way more people are killed and injured with knives than with guns.
Your statement is intriguing, though. I've assumed that arms mean firearms. But if arms are more broadly defined, that suggests that a single category of "arms" could be banned entirely and still not infringe on the right. Could guns be banned because folks can always use swords to defend themselves? Obviously that makes little sense in the context of the collective right of defense associated with the "well-regulated militia", but what about in terms of the natural, individual right to self-defense (the one I believe exists, like the right to privacy, in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution but not in the Second Amendment)?
NONSENSE. The primary cause of the 2nd is to counteract the formation of the standing army - The formation thereof driving the creation of the Bill of Rights, as the Federalist Papers plainly disclose. A 'well armed militia' in that day was citizen soldiers bearing their own firearms - Therein the inherent individual right of the citizen for self defense: No personally owned weapons, no militia - As distinguished from federal armies.
The last active citizen militia movement was not so long ago at the Bundy Ranch - Do you think those cowboys would have been able to stand off the Fed with swords? The entire idea is ridiculous.
I don't think the Second Amendment is of much practical utility to the average gunowner - I don't think it is the source of his Constitutional right. I think the Constitution's protection of the natural rights of man - as acknowledged, finally, after two centuries by the SCOTUS - is the source of the right, and creates the limits by which government can restrict and regulate the right.
The two are intertwined within the 2nd. Both standing militias AND citizen owned firearms with self defense implied... Scalia didn't change that. 'Well regulated' means 'well trained and equipped'. And YES, governmental restriction and regulation are exactly enumerated in the phrase 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'.
-
The problem with guns is partly that so many hundreds of millions of them are out there, with many changing ownership by "underground" means.
GOOD.
The more out there that you and your nanny-state behemoth-burgeoning-tyranny do not know about - the better for us and those who want to keep people like you in check.
A system of registration and insurance would, just as it does with cars, ensure that serial numbers are associated with legally-responsible owners, and that transfers and dispositions are documented and take place lawfully.
We are not going to comply with any more infringements or "laws" you and your behemoth nanny-state make and pass. Not when your government is demonstrably corrupt and lawless itself.
But if arms are more broadly defined, that suggests that a single category of "arms" could be banned entirely and still not infringe on the right.
And again you demonstrate there is absolutely no limit to which the perverted minds of tyranny advocates will devise 'legal' ways to impose their tyranny.
I think the Constitution's protection of the natural rights of man - as acknowledged, finally, after two centuries by the SCOTUS - is the source of the right, and creates the limits by which government can restrict and regulate the right.
Utter and unmitigated BULLSHIT. The source of the right come from God and Nature's God and in no wise grants government any authority or power to regulate that right into a government-granted privilege, which is what you advocate.
-
And if you and the agents of the state you empower come to impose your will upon us by force (that means using guns to put to our heads) you will have that war I told you that you are buying.
You know, the federal agents you gleefully promise to murder have wives and kids just like you do, and are only doing their job.
And the laws they are obliged to enforce are promulgated not by a tyranny, but by the elected representatives of the people in a Constitutional Republic.
But you promise to murder them anyway, because this isn't the g-ddamn democratic republic of INVAR.
You routinely label me a communist and the agent of the Devil. I seek only to better this nation within the lawful confines of the Constitution, and engage with folks like the (mostly) good people of this Board about the issues of the day. You, on the other hand, think you are above the Constitution and the people, and that your guns make you a law unto yourself. But keep on preaching your hate and violence - if you think you're painting an attractive picture of the lawful gun-owner, then think again.
I fully agree with John Podhoretz who wrote this morning that those who are seeking ways to reduce gun violence do themselves a disservice when by their rhetoric they suggest that gun owners are moral monsters. Gun owners are by and large good people, who sincerely believe they need guns to protect their homes and families, or even just enjoy the shooting sports. But some gun owners ARE monsters, and you are a violence-obsessed textbook example of one.
-
You know, the federal agents you gleefully promise to murder have wives and kids just like you do, and are only doing their job.
No they are not you lying sack of ****.....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandy-hook-shooting-investigation-fbi-documents/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandy-hook-shooting-investigation-fbi-documents/)
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/06/fbi-knew-earlier-of-boston-bombing-suspect-166313 (https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/06/fbi-knew-earlier-of-boston-bombing-suspect-166313)
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/02/03/dozens-assaulted-larry-nassar/304326002/ (https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/02/03/dozens-assaulted-larry-nassar/304326002/)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-got-tip-parkland-shooter-nikolas-cruz-january-didn-t-n848681 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-got-tip-parkland-shooter-nikolas-cruz-january-didn-t-n848681)
-
The problem with guns is partly that so many hundreds of millions of them are out there, with many changing ownership by "underground" means.
More liberal talking point BS with nothing to substantiate the neferaious "underground claim".
-
You know, the federal agents you gleefully promise to murder have wives and kids just like you do, and are only doing their job.
Weren't you warned about this type of crap by the Mods yesterday?
Guess some.people have to learn the hard way I guess.
-
@Jazzhead
I have no interest in joining this intractable argument and since I wish to keep myself out of the fray, I won’t state my position on it. But, I do think your views probably represent the middle ground on this issue.
After the Parkland shooting, Left and Right are at each other’s throats. I haven’t seen it this vociferous in many years. But that not where this argument will be settled. The vast middle will settle it, depending which side can persuade moderates that their argument is the most sensible, consistent with the second amendment.
And finally, kudos for holding firm to your POV despite being vastly outnumbered. I applaud you for your courage under fire.... :beer:
-
@Jazzhead
I have no interest in joining this intractable argument and since I wish to keep myself out of the fray, I won’t state my position on it. But, I do think your views probably represent the middle ground on this issue.
After the Parkland shooting, Left and Right are at each other’s throats. I haven’t seen it this vociferous in many years. But that not where this argument will be settled. The vast middle will settle it, depending which side can persuade moderates that their argument is the most sensible, consistent with the second amendment.
And finally, kudos for holding firm to your POV despite being vastly outnumbered. I applaud you for your courage under fire.... :beer:
For someone who didn't want to insert themselves into the discussion and state their view on the issue you sure did a great job of doing both. *****rollingeyes*****
-
For someone who didn't want to insert themselves into the discussion and state their view on the issue you sure did a great job of doing both. *****rollingeyes*****
LOL. Now that there is funny.
-
@Jazzhead
No, the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights determined arms were unique and needed to be protected.
The 'community' isn't demanding anything except the right to defend themselves, a few radicals with a totalitarian agenda are flapping their gums using money from people like Soros.
Based on government police results lately, I now realize MORE THAN EVER the need for citizens to be prepared to defend themselves.
Blindness to this fact, is amazing. In Florida, the FBI, the local Police Dept., the schools's administration, and the school's own armed police FAILED miserably (all government entities).
An armed civilian, armed teacher, even an armed student could have saved many lives.
Finally, I see no point in discussing insurance. Unnecessary diversion.
-
@Jazzhead
I have no interest in joining this intractable argument and since I wish to keep myself out of the fray, I won’t state my position on it. But, I do think your views probably represent the middle ground on this issue.
After the Parkland shooting, Left and Right are at each other’s throats. I haven’t seen it this vociferous in many years. But that not where this argument will be settled. The vast middle will settle it, depending which side can persuade moderates that their argument is the most sensible, consistent with the second amendment.
And finally, kudos for holding firm to your POV despite being vastly outnumbered. I applaud you for your courage under fire.... :beer:
Why, thank you, @aligncare - I appreciate it! Beer back atcha - :beer:
-
You know, the federal agents you gleefully promise to murder have wives and kids just like you do, and are only doing their job.
Aside from your disregard of the Mod admonishment, so what? The Nazis had wives and kids. So did the Redcoats. They too were only just 'following orders' and 'doing their job'.
If agents of the state are empowered to impose the kind of tyrannical despotism dressed up in the color of law you are suggesting, then we will do what is necessary to repel them should they act to enforce said tyranny.
And the laws they are obliged to enforce are promulgated not by a tyranny, but by the elected representatives of the people in a Constitutional Republic.
This government under the compact we once existed has repeatedly violated our trust and on this issue it has absolutely no authority whatsoever to infringe or abolish an inalienable right and render it a government-granted privilege as you demand. When it attempts to do so, said government no longer has any legitimate moral authority of 'law' that any of us have to abide. Instead as the Founders wrote - it is our right and duty when we are no longer consent to be governed by such a tyranny, to resist and abolish such government and create new guards for our future security and happiness.
But you promise to murder them anyway, because this isn't the g-ddamn democratic republic of INVAR.
Our forbears skillfully killed agents of the legitimate governing authority of the Crown once it was self evident that they intended to disarm and subjugate the Colonies for their 'own safety'.
Should agents of the current state do the bidding of tyrants to impose similar dissolution of rights to mere privileges, I will treat them as no better than a serial rapist and killer who breaks into my home in the middle of the night to do harm to me and mine. With equally fervent determination to resist with extreme prejudice.
You routinely label me a communist and the agent of the Devil.
Your own words and positions posted to this board reveal that fact about you.
I seek only to better this nation within the lawful confines of the Constitution, and engage with folks like the (mostly) good people of this Board about the issues of the day.
No. Wrong. You seek to get the members of this board to buy into your Communistic claptrap and sell themselves willingly into the slavery of Statist despotism that you so desire to fundamentally transform us into.
You, on the other hand, think you are above the Constitution and the people, and that your guns make you a law unto yourself. But keep on preaching your hate and violence - if you think you're painting an attractive picture of the lawful gun-owner, then think again.
I don't care how you feel or how it feels or looks to people like you. I'm not governed by popularity. Fine, call it hate. I don't care what you think. Just understand that when you empower the state and its agents to make that last mistake, you will rue the day you purchased this war you seem so desperate for.
But some gun owners ARE monsters, and you are a violence-obsessed textbook example of one.
Then try and do something about it. I'm waiting.
However, being the coward you are, you will empower the state to fight your grievances for you and advocate they put their guns to my head - which is what you promised to do once before with your alerting your pals in the FBI that I am a danger that needs to be dealt with.
Maybe give them a call again. Perhaps they are not as busy trying to frame Trump at the moment and they can devote time to make a public example of someone on the internet you hate who considers you a Commie Lib Pinko Tyranny Advocate and shreds the garbage you post here on this board.
-
Utter and unmitigated BULLSHIT. The source of the right come from God and Nature's God and in no wise grants government any authority or power to regulate that right into a government-granted privilege, which is what you advocate.
Hey, genius - that's what I meant by the RKBA being a "natural right". We all have the natural right to defend our persons and property. The Second Amendment isn't concerned with this natural right, but rather the collective right to secure the men and materials needed to provide for a citizens' militia.
I don't disagree that the Constitution secures man's natural rights - including the right to privacy, the right to self-determination, and the right to self-defense. That these rights have been acknowledged by the Supreme Court, despite the lack of specific language in the Constitution, represents an example of the "living Constitution" that many say they abhor. Modern day America is beset by threats to liberty unheard of in the Founders' day - from changing mores, the internet, and from technology generally including increasingly lethal tools of violence. I am pleased that the Constitution has evolved to protect your right as an individual to defend your home, just as it protects a woman's right to control her destiny and a gay person's right to the equal protection of the law.
-
I am pleased that the Constitution has evolved
:banging:
-
Hey, genius - that's what I meant by the RKBA being a "natural right". We all have the natural right to defend our persons and property. The Second Amendment isn't concerned with this natural right, just the collective right to secure the men and materials needed to provide for a citizens' militia.
"Collective Right"? No you idiot, the right to self defense is inherent in the fact we live and breathe. The Second Amendment, like everything else in the Constitution, exists to PROHIBIT or LIMIT what Government may touch or may not touch and sets the bounds for where it is permitted to operate.
The Second Amendment is specifically cites that a citizens militia, (which is made up of able-bodied men with their own arms and proficiency at using them) - is necessary for a state to be free from tyrants and conquerors and therefore the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms MAY NOT BE INFRINGED.
But here you come with grand schemes of plot and plan to argue that such Rights are mere govenrment-granted privileges that can and should be restricted, licensed, registered, taxed and insurance mandated so as to effectively abolish it.
I am pleased that the Constitution has evolved
To the point you can turn an enumerated Right into a mere government-granted privilege subject to "Reasonable regulation, oversight, insurance or abolishment" and find "rights" in 'penumbras and emanations' that are not listed anywhere except in the imaginations of activist judges you empower to establish as inviolable out of thin air.
-
Friends, I have a respectful request to make today.
This thread is going well over 300 posts so far, so it appears unlikely there is going to any kind of resolution to the controversy at hand. This is a subject that is very near and dear to a lot of Briefers on all sides, so naturally spirits are running high. Please break it up for a moment....
I wish to remind everybody TBR is a political discussion forum, so there will be some jostling among ourselves. I ask that we police our language some, in order to avoid being misconstrued by folks who are not very familiar with our free-wheeling styles of engagement.
In the "outside world," we are coming off a week of dreadful news, full of possible policy ramifications than may not be to our liking. Be mindful that it's news of people who started their journey to a very dark side in internet locations not that different from this one.
Thank you all very much for your respectful attention. Please head to your corners and come out smiling!
888high58888
-
Friends, I have a respectful request to make today.
This thread is going well over 300 posts so far, so it appears unlikely there is going to any kind of resolution to the controversy at hand. This is a subject that is very near and dear to a lot of Briefers on all sides, so naturally spirits are running high. Please break it up for a moment....
I wish to remind everybody TBR is a political discussion forum, so there will be some jostling among ourselves. I ask that we police our language some, in order to avoid being misconstrued by folks who are not very familiar with our free-wheeling styles of engagement.
In the "outside world," we are coming off a week of dreadful news, full of possible policy ramifications than may not be to our liking. Be mindful that it's news of people who started their journey to a very dark side in internet locations not that different from this one.
Thank you all very much for your respectful attention. Please head to your corners and come out smiling!
888high58888
Can I use foul language if I am being complimentary to a poster?
-
Can I use foul language if I am being complimentary to a poster?
Get on it. Be like a rat on a Cheeto!
-
Can I use foul language if I am being complimentary to a poster?
Well, you are Frank, and we've grown accustomed to a certain level of it, but on this particular general topic sometimes it's difficult for some folks to spot sarcasm and subtle compliments that come off the back of the hand. I'd kind of like it if you could give it a rest for a little while.
-
"Collective Right"? No you idiot, the right to self defense is inherent in the fact we live and breathe.
I agree. But the 2A does not provide specific protection of that right.
The Second Amendment, like everything else in the Constitution, exists to PROHIBIT or LIMIT what Government may touch or may not touch and sets the bounds for where it is permitted to operate.
Incorrect. The 2A doesn't limit the government's ability to infringe on a natural right. It is concerned with the preservation of conditions for the citizens' militia.
The Second Amendment is specifically cites that a citizens militia, (which is made up of able-bodied men with their own arms and proficiency at using them) - is necessary for a state to be free from tyrants and conquerors and therefore the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear those arms MAY NOT BE INFRINGED.
Yes - but the admonishment against infringement is in the context of the citizens' militia. It wasn't until Heller that the SCOTUS acknowledged the Constitution's limitation against government infringement of the natural right.
But here you come with grand schemes of plot and plan to argue that such Rights are mere govenrment-granted privileges that can and should be restricted, licensed, registered, taxed and insurance mandated so as to effectively abolish it.
You're putting the rabbit in the hat. I have never advocated "abolishment" of the natural right or the right associated with the citizens militia. But all rights are subject to reasonable regulation - permits are required for speeches and demonstrations, and IMO, registration and insurance should be required as a condition of lawful gun ownership.
To the point you can turn an enumerated Right into a mere government-granted privilege subject to "Reasonable regulation, oversight, insurance or abolishment" and find "rights" in 'penumbras and emanations' that are not listed anywhere except in the imaginations of activist judges you empower to establish as inviolable out of thin air.
Regulation of a natural right doesn't convert it into a privilege. Regulation is generally prescribed to address situations where the unfettered exercise of a right may harm others or compel the government to expend resources to preserve the public safety. Hence, permits and advance notice are required for demonstrations. And guns, as one means of self-defense, are also inherently dangerous. So, to assist law enforcement, registration and rules regarding lawful transfers and dispositions are reasonable and do not convert rights into privileges.
-
Incorrect. The 2A doesn't limit the government's ability to infringe on a natural right. It is concerned with the preservation of conditions for the citizens' militia.
You stated that as a fact, like the color of the sky is blue. That is an issue very much under debate. There are many people who disagree with your oversimplification of it.
-
The issue in all this for me is the government trustworthy enough? IOW, do I trust government to always do the right and benevolent thing? No. People who work in government have all the same drives and ambitions as any other human being. No one can guarantee what government would do with a list of registered guns and their owners.
Someone mentioned compliance. I would bet you would see a large scale non compliance which would make any registration scheme a bureaucratic impossibility
-
You stated that as a fact, like the color of the sky is blue. That is an issue very much under debate. There are many people who disagree with your oversimplification of it.
Then how do you explain the predicate clause? Proper statutory interpretation requires that you give meaning to the entire statute, not just (in the case of the 2A) the portion after the predicate clause.
What is an "oversimplification" is to claim you know the meaning of the 2A without addressing the predicate clause.
Note that I am NOT disagreeing with you about the natural right of individual self defense and the Constitution's effective restriction of the federal government's power to deny it. But that natural right is not described or addressed in the 2A. It is no more or less protected than the natural right of individual privacy.
-
You stated that as a fact, like the color of the sky is blue. That is an issue very much under debate. There are many people who disagree with your oversimplification of it.
You're much nicer than I can manage to be. Since.... like a typical leftie, he has it exactly backazzwards.
My perception of the 2nd Amendment is.... the very purpose and meaning is to "limit the government's ability to infringe (shall not be infringed) upon the right to bear arms".
The leftist spin by our resident leftie is hilarious. Hopefully.... nobody reading the forum is dumb enough to buy into it.
"....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-
The issue in all this for me is the government trustworthy enough? IOW, do I trust government to always do the right and benevolent thing? No. People who work in government have all the same drives and ambitions as any other human being. No one can guarantee what government would do with a list of registered guns and their owners.
Someone mentioned compliance. I would bet you would see a large scale non compliance which would make any registration scheme a bureaucratic impossibility
I think you would too. This came up the other day, and it was pointed out the Canadians pretty well destroyed their government's attempt to register all long guns by simply ignoring the law, and the government realized there aren't enough Mounties to knock on all the doors that would be required to get even a little cooperation from the citizens.
It doesn't matter how too cool for school the Legislature thinks it is by issuing these demands, the citizens will veto it by noncompliance if they feel like it, especially if they know there are sufficient numbers doing it. They can demand registration of all 300 Million firearms tomorrow, and in five years they'd be lucky to know where a couple million of them are. It's one thing to fill out a form to make one purchase that stays at the gun store, it's another to sit down with a pencil and paper to inventory one's entire collection of weapons.
-
You're much nicer than I can manage to be. Since.... like a typical leftie, he has it exactly backazzwards.
My perception of the 2nd Amendment is.... the very purpose and meaning is to "limit the government's ability to infringe (shall not be infringed) upon the right to bear arms".
The leftist spin by our resident leftie is hilarious. Hopefully.... nobody reading the forum is dumb enough to buy into it.
So what is the purpose of the predicate clause? You, too, only quote the portion of the 2A you like, and by doing so distort its meaning and intent.
-
It's one thing to fill out a form to make one purchase that stays at the gun store, it's another to sit down with a pencil and paper to inventory one's entire collection of weapons.
It's not that difficult. You're a collector - I'm sure you know exactly what you have.
Regarding a point raised by another poster (possibly on another thread) - as an alternative to insurance, it should be permitted to allow a gun owner to simply post a bond, covering the specific weapons he owns and their serial numbers. The bond would provide a source of compensation for harm caused by any of the weapons covered by the bond, up until the point of lawful transfer or disposition, or the date the gun is reported as stolen to the police.
-
Then how do you explain the predicate clause? Proper statutory interpretation requires that you give meaning to the entire statute, not just (in the case of the 2A) the portion after the predicate clause.
I've heard it described as a justification for the individual right: It's hard to have a standing militia if the government can require all the weapons stay locked up in an Amory. IOW, because we need the militia, then the individuals must retain the right to maintain their own weapons.
That's the way I've learned to parse the clause. YMMV.
-
It's not that difficult. You're a collector - I'm sure you know exactly what you have.
Regarding a point raised by another poster (possibly on another thread) - as an alternative to insurance, it should be permitted to allow a gun owner to simply post a bond, covering the specific weapons he owns and their serial numbers. The bond would provide a source of compensation for harm caused by any of the weapons covered by the bond, up until the point of lawful transfer or disposition, or the date the gun is reported as stolen to the police.
It's not a question of difficulty. As you no doubt suspect, I do maintain such a list, so in case something turns up missing I can provide the serial information to the police in my complaint, along with a description of the firearm. I don't want to hand that inventory list over to the government because I don't trust them to not abuse it.
The Bond issue is exactly the same as the insurance one, in that it erects a financial barrier for gun ownership.
-
So what is the purpose of the predicate clause? You, too, only quote the portion of the 2A you like, and by doing so distort its meaning and intent.
Actually, you're the one distorting the meaning and intent by ignoring the part I quoted.... which is the 'pertinent' part...lol.
Get....a..... clue. (I know, I know.... I'm dreaming)
-
I agree. But the 2A does not provide specific protection of that right.
Because Rights are inherent and inalienable. Government has no authority to infringe upon them, regulate them, tax them or turn them into government-granted privileges. Which is what you advocate. The Second Amendment EXPLICITLY tells government it MAY NOT INFRINGE on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means it may not "reasonably regulate" it, license it, tax it or require insurance and government approval before you are allowed to keep and bear (meaning USE) arms.
The 2A doesn't limit the government's ability to infringe on a natural right. It is concerned with the preservation of conditions for the citizens' militia.
Unmitigated bovine excrement. Government has no authority to infringe on any natural Right - including the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with preserving 'conditions' for a citizen's militia. It explicitly stated that the security of a free state was dependent upon every male owning a firearm, knowing how to use it - and being able to bring it with him when called up. Well-regulated meant such a militia was well-armed with weapons of warfare, capable and able to follow orders to conduct the defense of the state.
Yes - but the admonishment against infringement is in the context of the citizens' militia.
That's the same stupid avenue as insisting the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard. A free state was dependent upon every able-bodied man to defend it (there was no standing army at the time it was ratified) with HIS OWN ARMS and the requirement was to be proficient and well-supplied, and therefore - since the Constitution specifically addresses government and not The People - the militia in terms of the defense of the state was to be untouched - and the people's right to keep and bear arms not permitted to be infringed.
It wasn't until Heller that the SCOTUS acknowledged the Constitution's limitation against government infringement of the natural right.
WRONG. We do not need a court to acknowledge an inalienable right before it can be recognized as a right. The tis just another tactic to make Rights a construct and province of government.
You're putting the rabbit in the hat. I have never advocated "abolishment"...
That is where all your stupid suggestions go and end up - as is the design and intent of them. REGARDLESS of what you assert otherwise.
But all rights are subject to reasonable regulation
There you go again, relegating inalienable rights to mere government-granted privileges.
- permits are required for speeches and demonstrations, and IMO, registration and insurance should be required as a condition of lawful gun ownership.
All of that illegal, unconstitutional and having made our Rights into government-granted privileges and licenses.
Regulation of a natural right doesn't convert it into a privilege.
Yes it does. Period. End of sentence.
If you can 'regulate' a Right - then it no longer exists as a 'right' unless Government grants the permission to exercise that "right" if certain conditions are met.
THAT is called a government granted PRIVILEGE, NOT a Right.
A Right is that which exists outside of the authority of men to limit, restrict, violate or abolish
Regulation is generally prescribed to address situations where the unfettered exercise of a right may harm others or compel the government to expend resources to preserve the public safety.
Then they are not rights at all. Mere privileges that the government can restrict, regulate, tax or abolish as it sees the need and desire to do so.
All you are doing is arguing why Rights belong to the government to establish parameters required before one is permitted to exercise it.
Which again, redefines a Right into a government-granted privilege.
Which is what you are all about: empowering the state to impose your will.
-
Why The Left Finds Wisdom In The Shrieks Of Parkland’s Traumatized Teens
Leftism’s cult of youth is coming out in glorious display by showcasing Stoneman Douglas High School students and their pending movement for severe gun control measures.
By Peter Burfeind
February 23, 2018
Leftism’s cult of youth is coming out in glorious display by showcasing Stoneman Douglas High School students and their pending movement for severe gun control measures. Yes, “cult†perfectly suits a media rendered awe-stricken and rationally stunted by the shrieks of children. They share a psychological profile with historic cultists, from Adolph Hitler’s Nuremberg crowds to Jim Jones’ flock: the mind shuts down and rewires itself to make rational—in a democracy!—such Manichaean claims like “You’re either with us or you’re against us.†...
Youth are the subject material most freshly minted from today’s education mills, best primed to be change agents for what any leftist knows is history’s predestined course.
Logic be damned. Critical thinking be damned. Diversity of thought be damned. The secularist, demythologized inauguration of God’s kingdom on earth is all that matters. And in this world, as the prophecy declares, the guns are beat into plowshares. ...
It has been a fascinating several years seeing the installment of the leftist religion bit by bit. We go down a wrong path thinking the media showcases the youth just because they’re mouthing leftist opinions. No, lots of old people mouth leftist views and no one cares. It’s the sacralizing of youthfulness, and why it is being sacralized, that gives us an insight into the dawning new religion.
Entire article at The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/23/left-finds-wisdom-shrieks-parklands-traumatized-teens/)
-
I think you would too. This came up the other day, and it was pointed out the Canadians pretty well destroyed their government's attempt to register all long guns by simply ignoring the law, and the government realized there aren't enough Mounties to knock on all the doors that would be required to get even a little cooperation from the citizens.
It doesn't matter how too cool for school the Legislature thinks it is by issuing these demands, the citizens will veto it by noncompliance if they feel like it, especially if they know there are sufficient numbers doing it. They can demand registration of all 300 Million firearms tomorrow, and in five years they'd be lucky to know where a couple million of them are. It's one thing to fill out a form to make one purchase that stays at the gun store, it's another to sit down with a pencil and paper to inventory one's entire collection of weapons.
Whether it’s guns or any issue, we tend to assume that anything we support others will also and we’ll just tell others who don’t that they have to comply with our values. And, we tend think anything we support will work as we want. I suspect the sheer volume of non compliance with any registration scheme would cause the government to back off
-
I suspect the sheer volume of non compliance with any registration scheme would cause the government to back off
Not exactly.
The sheer magnitude of non-compliance and the very real risk and threat agents of the state will face if attempting to enforce government's new law - is what will cause them to back off.
Hopefully that threat is large enough to cause the government to rethink going down the path that will earn them a justifiable war.
If not, then we will have already arrived at the point that Jefferson spoke of in terms of watering the Tree of Liberty.
-
Not exactly.
The sheer magnitude of non-compliance and the very real risk and threat agents of the state will face if attempting to enforce government's new law - is what will cause them to back off.
Hopefully that threat is large enough to cause the government to rethink going down the path that will earn them a justifiable war.
If not, then we will have already arrived at the point that Jefferson spoke of in terms of watering the Tree of Liberty.
This right here is the knife-edge of where this goes from here. Will the Feds really feel like they can win in an attempt to mass register all the 300 Million or so firearms? If they don't they'll find a way to back it off. But if they do, well yeah, Jefferson's tree is going to get hydrated.
-
This right here is the knife-edge of where this goes from here. Will the Feds really feel like they can win in an attempt to mass register all the 300 Million or so firearms? If they don't they'll find a way to back it off. But if they do, well yeah, Jefferson's tree is going to get hydrated.
Won’t ever come to any type of shooting. Federal agents have no desire to shoot law abiding gun owners wholesale anymore than law abiding gun owners want to shoot federal agents. Plus the optics of government officials stomping on American citizens over a controversial law won’t generate much sympathy towards the state
-
Won’t ever come to any type of shooting. Federal agents have no desire to shoot law abiding gun owners wholesale anymore than law abiding gun owners want to shoot federal agents. Plus the optics of government officials stomping on American citizens over a controversial law won’t generate much sympathy towards the state
That's the way I see it too, but it has to be proven to the lefties among us that they don't have the numbers of willing compliants to get their idiotic theories to work. They really thought Obamacare would work, too.
-
I agree. But the 2A does not provide specific protection of that right.
"Shall not be infringed" is the specific clearly worded language that does indeed do what you claim isn't there.
It's only you that seems to be blind to that fact.
-
For someone who didn't want to insert themselves into the discussion and state their view on the issue you sure did a great job of doing both. *****rollingeyes*****
You have no idea what my position is because I specifically withheld it. What I stated was an opinion about the landscape. The direction congress moves, if they move at all (because actually democrats don’t want any action as they’d rather use the issue to attack republicans with in November), will be determined by the way moderates move on this issue. That’s not my position, that’s how I think things will play out. There’s a difference, so retract your claws.
-
"Shall not be infringed" is the specific clearly worded language that does indeed do what you claim isn't there.
It's only you that seems to be blind to that fact.
Not just me. Scalia in Heller confirms that the gun right may be reasonably regulated.
-
Not just me. Scalia in Heller confirms that the gun right may be reasonably regulated.
@Smokin Joe and a couple of others already disassembled your feeble attempt to misconstrue what Scalia actually said in order to try and bolster your complete lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment.
-
Not just me. Scalia in Heller confirms that the gun right may be reasonably regulated.
We do not care what some judge who wore black robes had to say about the ability of government to regulate a Right into a grant-of-government privilege (if he even confirms what you attribute to him, which is likely your own interpretation of it).
Get it through your thick, Collectivist skull Comrade: we are NOT going to comply with any further gun control schemes or the "reasonable regulations" you and the foam-at-the-mouth Leftists demand. Period.
Does not matter what some court, some judge, some congress or some president decrees or passes. We will refuse to comply. We will not register, purchase insurance or any other stupid pre-confiscation scheme you and your priesthood of Leftist legal beagles dream up.
You are going to need to empower government agents to go out and attempt to kill a whole lot of Americans who are going to defy and refuse to comply.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,305445.msg1614824/topicseen.html#msg1614824 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,305445.msg1614824/topicseen.html#msg1614824)
-
A few years old but a good read
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/3 (http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/3)
“Or perhaps they’re just getting more distrustful of the authorities. In fact, American gun owners may have good reason to be skeptical of common assurances that registration records won’t ever be used for anything more than tracking lost and stolen weapons. In New York City, the center of agitation for tighter U.S. gun laws, the registration system for long guns such as rifles and shotguns, established in 1967, was used in the 1990s to confiscate previously lawful semiautomatic rifles.
California state officials pulled a similar stunt, though with a shorter grace period. After the registration of so-called “assault weapons†subsequent to the passage of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, Attorney General Dan Lungren reversed official position in 1997 to declare one of the rifles considered legal and subject to registration just a few years earlier—the SKS Sporter—to be illegal. Owners who had complied with the law were forced to surrender their weapons or transfer them out of state.â€
-
The bats and guns are in a rider on my homeowner policy. If I injure somebody with them accidentally (not as a result of any deliberate action) there is a claim to be made.
Sorry I'm late in replying. That's what I thought you meant. Was that expensive, if you don't mind my asking? Did you have to list your weapons separately or anything like that?
-
@LauraTXNM
Yes - last summer, I drove through the back roads of western KS and OK to get over to Raton. I wanted to see Johnson Mesa, then continue north on I-25 into Colorado. Had to stop off the freeway due to one of the most intense thunder storms I've ever been in while driving. The lightning was incredible.
If you ever have the time, there's an art installation in NM called "The Lightning Field". You spend the night in a cabin with lightning rods all around so you can watch the lightning show ;).
-
I can kill with a piece of string.
Every sort of trap is made to kill.
Poisons are made to kill.
There is nothing unique about guns... In fact, guns are far better than the above, because guns kill selectively, while all the rest (including the string) do not. Yet all of the above, are unlicensed, easily acquired, and largely unregulated.
Ok, I don't get this point (although it's minor). Strings, knives, poison are selective too -- you have to intentionally attack a target with them. Did I misunderstand your use of "selective"?
-
@Jazzhead
I think making victims of one crime responsible for the costs of a crime committed by someone else is unreasonable to the extreme. If a kid steals my car and kills someone while running from police is the car owner held responsible?
I think I understand your point. But it's important to let the police know if your gun is stolen, isn't it?
-
@Jazzhead
I have no interest in joining this intractable argument and since I wish to keep myself out of the fray, I won’t state my position on it. But, I do think your views probably represent the middle ground on this issue.
After the Parkland shooting, Left and Right are at each other’s throats. I haven’t seen it this vociferous in many years. But that not where this argument will be settled. The vast middle will settle it, depending which side can persuade moderates that their argument is the most sensible, consistent with the second amendment.
And finally, kudos for holding firm to your POV despite being vastly outnumbered. I applaud you for your courage under fire.... :beer:
This is a lovely post. Kudos!
-
Then how do you explain the predicate clause? Proper statutory interpretation requires that you give meaning to the entire statute, not just (in the case of the 2A) the portion after the predicate clause.
What is an "oversimplification" is to claim you know the meaning of the 2A without addressing the predicate clause.
Note that I am NOT disagreeing with you about the natural right of individual self defense and the Constitution's effective restriction of the federal government's power to deny it. But that natural right is not described or addressed in the 2A. It is no more or less protected than the natural right of individual privacy.
I would like to know what you all think of this:
From https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm (https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm)
"....It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to 'insure domestic Tranquility' and 'provide for the common defence.'"
-
Ok, I don't get this point (although it's minor). Strings, knives, poison are selective too -- you have to intentionally attack a target with them. Did I misunderstand your use of "selective"?
@LauraTXNM
No, with the exception of the knife. Otherwise, anything that is a trap is not selective, to include poisons. Feral cats as an instance, have to be hunted, because there is no way to discriminate between a feral cat and a barn cat.
You don't set a conibear trap around a barnyard, nor a leg trap, nor lay out most poisons, because they are all indiscriminate. All the common raiders around the barn (coon, possum, skunk, fox, coyote, etc) are usually hunted, precisely because a rifle or shotgun is precisely selective, and you are not likely to injure anything other than what you are aiming at.
Even in the wild, snares, traps and poisons don't always give you what you meant to get - a lay for a marten might yield a squirrel... a lay for a beaver might yield a coon, muskrat, mink or even otter.
See?
-
@LauraTXNM
No, with the exception of the knife. Otherwise, anything that is a trap is not selective, to include poisons. Feral cats as an instance, have to be hunted, because there is no way to discriminate between a feral cat and a barn cat.
You don't set a conibear trap around a barnyard, nor a leg trap, nor lay out most poisons, because they are all indiscriminate. All the common raiders around the barn (coon, possum, skunk, fox, coyote, etc) are usually hunted, precisely because a rifle or shotgun is precisely selective, and you are not likely to injure anything other than what you are aiming at.
Even in the wild, snares, traps and poisons don't always give you what you meant to get - a lay for a marten might yield a squirrel... a lay for a beaver might yield a coon, muskrat, mink or even otter.
See?
Yes, thank you. I was thinking about string or wire to garrote someone, or poison used by Lucretia Borgia. Different circumstances.
-
Yes, thank you. I was thinking about string or wire to garrote someone, or poison used by Lucretia Borgia. Different circumstances.
@LauraTXNM
Ahh... It might be noted that out here in the sticks, we generally avoid killing hoomins. :) But that difference in mindset is important as to why folks don't understand me when I say we need guns to survive. Our requirements wrt killing are much different than yours, and much more necessary day to day.
That's why gun safes and trigger locks and unloaded weapons - something that city folks all advocate for - Are absolutely stupid to me. If something is going on out in the yard, I don't have time to mess with all that silly nonsense. Neither do you, btw, but that is far less evident in the city where guns lay on a shelf for months and years... But you'd figure that out mighty quick the first time you need the dang thing.
-
@LauraTXNM
Ahh... It might be noted that out here in the sticks, we generally avoid killing hoomins. :) But that difference in mindset is important as to why folks don't understand me when I say we need guns to survive. Our requirements wrt killing are much different than yours, and much more necessary day to day.
That's why gun safes and trigger locks and unloaded weapons - something that city folks all advocate for - Are absolutely stupid to me. If something is going on out in the yard, I don't have time to mess with all that silly nonsense. Neither do you, btw, but that is far less evident in the city where guns lay on a shelf for months and years... But you'd figure that out mighty quick the first time you need the dang thing.
@roamer_1 That's why my sister kept the shotgun under her bed ;).
-
We do not care what some judge who wore black robes had to say about the ability of government to regulate a Right into a grant-of-government privilege (if he even confirms what you attribute to him, which is likely your own interpretation of it).
Get it through your thick, Collectivist skull Comrade: we are NOT going to comply with any further gun control schemes or the "reasonable regulations" you and the foam-at-the-mouth Leftists demand. Period.
Does not matter what some court, some judge, some congress or some president decrees or passes. We will refuse to comply. We will not register, purchase insurance or any other stupid pre-confiscation scheme you and your priesthood of Leftist legal beagles dream up.
You are going to need to empower government agents to go out and attempt to kill a whole lot of Americans who are going to defy and refuse to comply.
@INVAR
:amen:
-
Looking back on all these replies, my only question would be what’s the end game plan for, what would sure to be, mass non compliance with a gun registration/ insurance plan?
-
Looking back on all these replies, my only question would be what’s the end game plan for, what would sure to be, mass non compliance with a gun registration/ insurance plan?
Punishment. Massive draconian punishment.
There are enough subtle suggestions out there online from the unhinged anti-gun/Leftists that have said that those who refuse to comply with "sensible registration" schemes are selfish 'terrorists/Nazis/murderers' and a plague/scourge on the 'community' that deserve to be 'removed' for the safety of "our democracy". Most simply warn that those who refuse to comply will 'face' law enforcement and 'suffer' the consequences of prison or death for not complying.
Their end plan is to make the 2nd Amendment a severely regulated government-granted privilege and make very public examples of 'gun nuts' who refuse to comply with their diktats in the hopes that it will cause a climate of fear and force the rest of those with guns to comply.
-
@LauraTXNM , a rough analogy to the sort of insurance I have in mind is PIP (Personal Injury Protection) insurance, which is a mandatory extension of car insurance in many states. It covers medical expenses and, in many cases, lost wages as the result of injuries suffered in a car accident. It is sometimes called "no-fault" because it is agnostic of who is at fault in the accident.
As applied to guns, the idea is for a gun owner to register and insure his guns, with the insurance available to pay the medical bills and lost wages of a victim of violence committed while using an insured gun. The insurance would pay off if the act of violence occurs while the gun is covered by the insurance - and such coverage would remain in force until such time as the gun's ownership is lawfully transferred, the gun is lawfully disposed of, or the gun is reported stolen to the police. The incentive is therefore in place for a gun owner to keep weapons secured from unauthorized use, to effect only "official" and traceable dispositions of the guns he owns (that is, not selling the thing out of the back of a truck but rather using a broker that upon resale will run the requisite background checks), and to promptly report stolen guns. Otherwise, his insurance policy will pay off and his premiums will go up.
The idea isn't to "cast gun owners in a bad light" or to make it too expensive for them to afford to defend themselves. Rather, the idea is to encourage gun owners to be responsible, to secure their guns against unauthorized use (like Adam Lanza taking his mom's guns), to effect only lawful transfers, and to report stolen weapons. Does anyone here really think that demanding such responsibility from gunowners is unreasonable?
Well, wrong. "No Fault insurance" means if I get in a wreck, regardless of who is at fault, my insurance company pays for my problems, and their insurance company pays for theirs. My insurance company reimburses me for my losses (would buy me another gun), their insurance company pays for their losses (?). The "No-Fault" model does not work unless everyone is carrying "no-fault" insurance. You want the responsible, compliant, gun owners to pick up the tab for the acts of criminals and nutcases who aren't likely to comply, anyway.
(you might recognize this phrase)
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Due Process of Law."
Those who have committed no crime would be thus deprived, regardless, and on a per firearm, not even just a per person basis, essentially penalizing an object for the actions of humans, a theme we have already seen used in "Civil Asset Forfeiture" enabling passers by to be looted by LEOs at will.
As for even implying that the vast majority of gunowners aren't responsible or would for a New York Second permit unauthorized use of their firearms, you can crawl into the warm dark orifice that produced that comment and rot, for all I care. It will likely do nothing to improve the smell.
What you have outlined is a joke. If the only people covered would be those injured with an insured gun, would that gun remain insured if stolen and wielded by someone else?
If someone steals my car and runs over a bunch of schoolchildren crossing the street, does my insurance company have to pay out? (No, the insurance is not in effect for criminal acts, nor acts of war, declared or undeclared, and it would be no different with firearms, and would not cover the unauthorized use of the vehicle).
With that in mind, would this provide the deep running trough for lawyers to gobble contingency fees from? Would the insurance companies pay the bills? Nope, and Nope. That isn't the way that works. Would the owner be found liable, even if the safe he had them in had been breached? Maybe, in courts where not being baked a cake wins the lawsuit lotto.
But the responsibility for the actions of the perpetrator should belong solely with the perpetrator. Contributing factors may be noted and addressed, but I don't know any gun owners who want their guns stolen or used by others they don't even know in wholesale slaughter. But maybe some creative shyster can sue the iron mines which mined the iron which was made into steel which was made into a firearm which was sold to a dealer which was purchased legally which was stolen and used in a crime, or maybe y'all can go back to focusing on the criminals and quit making excuses for them.
Adam Lanza killed his mother and then proceeded to make off with the (rest of the) guns. She had a problem with reporting the theft--she was too dead to do so. To imply that she was OK with any of that is simply beyond the pale, even for you.
-
Punishment. Massive draconian punishment.
There are enough subtle suggestions out there online from the unhinged anti-gun/Leftists that have said that those who refuse to comply with "sensible registration" schemes are selfish 'terrorists/Nazis/murderers' and a plague/scourge on the 'community' that deserve to be 'removed' for the safety of "our democracy". Most simply warn that those who refuse to comply will 'face' law enforcement and 'suffer' the consequences of prison or death for not complying.
Their end plan is to make the 2nd Amendment a severely regulated government-granted privilege and make very public examples of 'gun nuts' who refuse to comply with their diktats in the hopes that it will cause a climate of fear and force the rest of those with guns to comply.
At the risk of being called "Pro murder of cops," I'd point out there will be an equal and opposite reaction of severe resistance in the short run, and I'm not talking about marches of people wearing stupid pink hats. In the long run there will be massive retaliation on a government who would try to enact such laws that come with draconian measures to ensure compliance.
I can't imagine a more dangerous task for law enforcement than trying to force people to register their weapons. There is no nice way to ask somebody to get on a cattle car.
-
Adam Lanza killed his mother and then proceeded to make off with the (rest of the) guns. She had a problem with reporting the theft--she was too dead to do so. To imply that she was OK with any of that is simply beyond the pale, even for you.
In fairness to @LauraTXNM, she may have forgotten who Adam Lanza's first murder victim was that day....
-
In fairness to @LauraTXNM, she may have forgotten who Adam Lanza's first murder victim was that day....
I believe he was directing that comment to Jazzhead.
-
There is no nice way to ask somebody to get on a cattle car.
Sure there is. You invoke guilt and declare them to be evil first.
Then you tell them that for their own good and the good of the 'oppressed' and the children in society, that the government has need to take from you - everything it determines under the false promise it will provide what you need.
Then they will tell you to get in the boxcar for a nice ride to your new government-sponsored safe space.
And like dutiful imbeciles without any understanding of history - a large number of people who think that it is impossible for our own government to repeat the acts of horror in history - or whom have no knowledge of it - they willingly walk themselves to camps.
Solzhenitsyn illustrated for us how this is done by a people who do not love liberty enough and whom have surrendered their ability to fight back, the very government that rules them.
-
I believe he was directing that comment to Jazzhead.
Ooops! You are correct! My sincere apologies, @LauraTXNM! I should have known better.
-
Sure there is. You invoke guilt and declare them to be evil first.
Then you tell them that for their own good and the good of the 'oppressed' and the children in society, that the government has need to take from you - everything it determines under the false promise it will provide what you need.
Then they will tell you to get in the boxcar for a nice ride to your new government-sponsored safe space.
And like dutiful imbeciles without any understanding of history - a large number of people who think that it is impossible for our own government to repeat the acts of horror in history - or whom have no knowledge of it - they willingly walk themselves to camps.
Solzhenitsyn illustrated for us how this is done by a people who do not love liberty enough and whom have surrendered their ability to fight back, the very government that rules them.
Interesting observation that makes me wonder: Would George Takei cheerfully walk himself back into an interment camp if he was told to by a leftist dictator?
-
At the risk of being called "Pro murder of cops," I'd point out there will be an equal and opposite reaction of severe resistance in the short run, and I'm not talking about marches of people wearing stupid pink hats. In the long run there will be massive retaliation on a government who would try to enact such laws that come with draconian measures to ensure compliance.
I can't imagine a more dangerous task for law enforcement than trying to force people to register their weapons. There is no nice way to ask somebody to get on a cattle car.
They'll put the stranglehold on ammunition. That is what California is trying to do. It won't matter if you have a weapon if you can't get ammo for it.
-
They'll put the stranglehold on ammunition. That is what California is trying to do. It won't matter if you have a weapon if you can't get ammo for it.
Sure. Remember the ammo crisis from a few years ago? I would not be surprised to see a lot of people caching that stuff, and getting reloading equipment.
-
Sure. Remember the ammo crisis from a few years ago? I would not be surprised to see a lot of people caching that stuff, and getting reloading equipment.
Reloading equipment won't be enough. You won't be able to get the basic materials. In addition they'll make you a criminal for making your own.
-
Interesting observation that makes me wonder: Would George Takei cheerfully walk himself back into an interment camp if he was told to by a leftist dictator?
Depends on what the dicktater was wearing.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/GTY_gay_pride_berlin_4_jt_150627_3x2_1600.jpg)
-
Sure. Remember the ammo crisis from a few years ago? I would not be surprised to see a lot of people caching that stuff, and getting reloading equipment.
Where have you been? Late to the party again, I see.
-
Reloading equipment won't be enough. You won't be able to get the basic materials. In addition they'll make you a criminal for making your own.
They will try. They will encounter the same non-compliance problem as with trying to clamp down on gun owners. So far, courts have held ammo is protected, as guns are, but the grabbers of the world will always try new approaches. I know it's like hell trying to get ammo in Cali.
That reminds me, need to check the online places for my new friend. I caught some flack from some folks because my wife and I walked into the store, plunked down the cash, and walked out with it, having the NICS check take about five minutes. Called it an "impulse buy" because my state doesn't believe in that stupid waiting period nonsense. We're pretty cantankerous about that commie "daylight savings time" crap too.
I have almost zero 5.56, and I have another serious hole in my cache for .45, both LC and ACP.
-
They'll put the stranglehold on ammunition. That is what California is trying to do. It won't matter if you have a weapon if you can't get ammo for it.
Yeah. It will just go underground. Smuggled in just like anything else you are not supposed to have.
-
Where have you been? Late to the party again, I see.
Only in some calibers. I have plenty of others. :patriot:
-
Yeah. It will just go underground. Smuggled in just like anything else you are not supposed to have.
Gunpowder and primers will be the weak link in that supply chain.
-
Sure. Remember the ammo crisis from a few years ago? I would not be surprised to see a lot of people caching that stuff, and getting reloading equipment.
The tough part is the primers. that's where they can cinch it down. You can make powder and casings, and pour lead, but the primer is hard to do.
-
Gunpowder and primers will be the weak link in that supply chain.
YEP.
GMTA
:beer:
-
Gunpowder and primers will be the weak link in that supply chain.
Start with 5,000 primers of each type you use and always buy powder in at least the 8#jugs. Also plenty of cases, molds and lead.
-
We all know there will be substantial non compliance issues if they go too far with any gun laws because we see that here in pockets and overseas. Hoe far will the government take things to enforce them? I still maintain any laws would end up being paper tigers
-
We all know there will be substantial non compliance issues if they go too far with any gun laws because we see that here in pockets and overseas. Hoe far will the government take things to enforce them? I still maintain any laws would end up being paper tigers
The Feds will figure out what the Japs knew going into WW2. There will be rifles behind every blade of grass.
-
They will try. They will encounter the same non-compliance problem as with trying to clamp down on gun owners. So far, courts have held ammo is protected, as guns are, but the grabbers of the world will always try new approaches. I know it's like hell trying to get ammo in Cali.
That reminds me, need to check the online places for my new friend. I caught some flack from some folks because my wife and I walked into the store, plunked down the cash, and walked out with it, having the NICS check take about five minutes. Called it an "impulse buy" because my state doesn't believe in that stupid waiting period nonsense. We're pretty cantankerous about that commie "daylight savings time" crap too.
I have almost zero 5.56, and I have another serious hole in my cache for .45, both LC and ACP.
Add Palmetto State Armory to your window shopping list. They usually have pretty good prices on ammo. And stuff in stock more often than Midway. Midway has been a disappointment the last several years as far as ammo goes, IMO.
-
We all know there will be substantial non compliance issues if they go too far with any gun laws because we see that here in pockets and overseas. Hoe far will the government take things to enforce them? I still maintain any laws would end up being paper tigers
They won't be overt until they have substantial compliance - The death of a thousand cuts...
Like how so many here are fine with form 4473 and background checks, and uncomfortable with buying off the street - That much is already accepted and the norm - Folks think you SHOULD buy from a dealer. It's already ingrained. What your kids accept will be just a little worse, till they have their national registry (which they have already in all but name).
Far more people now than in my youth are oblivious to hunting - It is becoming passe. Many more have never even touched a gun, and are uncomfortable around a LEO because he has one...
It is coming, sure as hell... and to thunderous applause.
They will be slaves.
And I will be an outlaw.
-
They won't be overt until they have substantial compliance - The death of a thousand cuts...
Like how so many here are fine with form 4473 and background checks, and uncomfortable with buying off the street - That much is already accepted and the norm - Folks think you SHOULD buy from a dealer. It's already ingrained. What your kids accept will be just a little worse, till they have their national registry (which they have already in all but name).
Far more people now than in my youth are oblivious to hunting - It is becoming passe. Many more have never even touched a gun, and are uncomfortable around a LEO because he has one...
It is coming, sure as hell... and to thunderous applause.
They will be slaves.
And I will be an outlaw.
Yep. Guy I know, just a little older than me, says "Politics is all about negotiating. Give them the bump stocks, nobody needs those, in exchange for keeping the ARs". Not sure how he doesn't realize that all that leads to is negotiating away everything.
-
Yep. Guy I know, just a little older than me, says "Politics is all about negotiating. Give them the bump stocks, nobody needs those, in exchange for keeping the ARs". Not sure how he doesn't realize that all that leads to is negotiating away everything.
That's right. Liberty ends with a whimper.
-
That's right. Liberty ends with a whimper.
The British thought that in Lexington and Concord. After all, they just wanted the subjects to hand over their guns. There wasn't much whimpering then. It did take a bit of waking up.
-
The British thought that in Lexington and Concord. After all, they just wanted the subjects to hand over their guns. There wasn't much whimpering then. It did take a bit of waking up.
Very few have the fire of liberty in their belly anymore... And fewer yet live in that liberty. Most folks are already collared by their addiction to the system.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsL-kkmpC0o#)
-
Very few have the fire of liberty in their belly anymore... And fewer yet live in that liberty. Most folks are already collared by their addiction to the system.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsL-kkmpC0o#)
There was a system then, and it worked. But the Crown crossed the line, and farmers and shopkeepers woke up. We don't know what it's going to take this time.
-
They won't be overt until they have substantial compliance - The death of a thousand cuts...
Like how so many here are fine with form 4473 and background checks, and uncomfortable with buying off the street - That much is already accepted and the norm - Folks think you SHOULD buy from a dealer. It's already ingrained. What your kids accept will be just a little worse, till they have their national registry (which they have already in all but name).
Far more people now than in my youth are oblivious to hunting - It is becoming passe. Many more have never even touched a gun, and are uncomfortable around a LEO because he has one...
It is coming, sure as hell... and to thunderous applause.
They will be slaves.
And I will be an outlaw.
There is vital wisdom in this post folks.
Incremental tyranny.
Just think how many people are already conditioned to think that Government should be in charge of their healthcare, to see smoking tobacco as criminal?
It is an historical fact that most enslaved peoples willingly trade away their liberties for the empty promise of safety and security.
And then they go after those who refuse to join in the surrender as enemies of the state.
-
There was a system then, and it worked. But the Crown crossed the line, and farmers and shopkeepers woke up. We don't know what it's going to take this time.
Those farmers and shopkeepers were free to walk off and thus retain their liberty.
If you can't walk off, your freedom is already lost - You just don't know it yet..
Too, too many can do no other, and wouldn't have the stones to try.
And thus will never know what they have lost.
Normalcy keeps them in check and fear keeps them in tow.
-
There is vital wisdom in this post folks.
Incremental tyranny.
Just think how many people are already conditioned to think that Government should be in charge of their healthcare, to see smoking tobacco as criminal?
It is an historical fact that most enslaved peoples willingly trade away their liberties for the empty promise of safety and security.
And then they go after those who refuse to join in the surrender as enemies of the state.
The only saving grace at this point, albeit small, is the constant bleep up that can be relied upon from gov't employees.
-
The only saving grace at this point, albeit small, is the constant bleep up that can be relied upon from gov't employees.
The ONE THING that government does exceptionally well, better than anything else - is impose meddlesome and despotic tyranny upon their subjects.
-
Those farmers and shopkeepers were free to walk off and thus retain their liberty.
If you can't walk off, your freedom is already lost - You just don't know it yet..
Too, too many can do no other, and wouldn't have the stones to try.
And thus will never know what they have lost.
Normalcy keeps them in check and fear keeps them in tow.
What they call normalcy is abnormal and aberrant to me.
And I AM an outlaw.
The MSM, the propaganda arm of the government, does a fantastic job of keeping people in fear.
-
What they call normalcy is abnormal and aberrant to me.
And I AM an outlaw.
The MSM, the propaganda arm of the government, does a fantastic job of keeping people in fear.
That's right.
-
The ONE THING that government does exceptionally well, better than anything else - is impose meddlesome and despotic tyranny upon their subjects.
That's true. I was thinking along the lines of being able to show people concrete examples of why they can never rely on the gov't for their safety.
-
Registration and insurance will provide a means of assigning legal liability to the registered gun owner and encourage gun owners to transfer firearms lawfully and to swiftly report stolen guns. Insurance can also, as with auto insurance, encourage safe practices and create a fund for the compensation of victims of gun violence.
@Jazzhead
Read this and tell me registration does not lead to confiscation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/these-california-agents-are-coming-for-your-guns/2018/02/24/b72fb252-183a-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html)
-
@Jazzhead
Read this and tell me registration does not lead to confiscation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/these-california-agents-are-coming-for-your-guns/2018/02/24/b72fb252-183a-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html)
He'll like what he reads and want to live in Cali.
-
He'll like what he reads and want to live in Cali.
That's good news. Nice to know where people like him are congregated.
-
He'll like what he reads and want to live in Cali.
@Jazzhead has said several times that he has no desire to use registration to confiscate guns wholesale and I have no reason to doubt his word. I trust he is sincere unless I see something to the contrary and, thus far, I haven’t
But nobody can speak for what anyone else would do. And that’s were folks should be vigilant.
I use the term “he†and my apologies @Jazzhead if you go by “she†888high58888
-
That's good news. Nice to know where people like him are congregated.
One of the reasons we need to have some crappy Congresscritters in DeeCee: They serve to tell us where the dangerous people are. I live in a heavily Gerrymandered district with a Corruptocrat Congresswoman, for example. That's how I know that I have to keep weapons and stock ammo.
This November will be interesting because she's running for Flakes seat and will probably win it because the Pubbies are blowing t in typical fashion (15 or so candidates), so I'll be in an open District soon.
-
@Jazzhead has said several times that he has no desire to use registration to confiscate anybody’s guns and I have no reason to doubt his word. I trust he is sincere unless I see something to the contrary and, thus far, I haven’t
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
I'm an old man, so I have learned to automatically distrust anybody who says "nobody want to take your guns," then goes on to explain why he doesn't want yahoos waltzing around his public square carrying guns.
Mrs. Liberty has a niece who was like that (only instead of "yahoos" she called us "gun nuts"), and she lives in a state that just went Constitutional Carry. I'm still laughing.
-
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
I'm an old man, so I have learned to automatically distrust anybody who says "nobody want to take your guns," then goes on to explain why he doesn't want yahoos waltzing around his public square carrying guns.
Mrs. Liberty has a niece who was like that (only instead of "yahoos" she called us "gun nuts"), and she lives in a state that just went Constitutional Carry. I'm still laughing.
I’m not saying I agree with his stance. I don’t. It’s just an honest disagreement
-
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
I'm an old man, so I have learned to automatically distrust anybody who says "nobody want to take your guns," then goes on to explain why he doesn't want yahoos waltzing around his public square carrying guns.
Mrs. Liberty has a niece who was like that (only instead of "yahoos" she called us "gun nuts"), and she lives in a state that just went Constitutional Carry. I'm still laughing.
I remember a few years ago the neighboring state of Minnesota passed a cc law. The liberals shrieked that there would Dodge City shootouts on every main street in the state on a daily basis. The daily shootouts never materialized. The homicide rates for the following years stayed the same as before they passed cc.
They passed cc carry here in Wisconsin, and the same thing happened...no increase in the homicide rate. Except in Milwaukee where gun laws were never obeyed. Most of the people shooting other people in Milwaukee were not cc people.....thugs shooting other thugs and the occasional innocent child with illegal i.e. stolen guns.
Outside Milwaukee things stayed the same.
-
I’m not saying I agree with his stance. I don’t. It’s just an honest disagreement
And I've been saying for many months now he's not being honest about his stance. :shrug:
-
And I've been saying for many months now he's not being honest about his stance. :shrug:
No. He is not honest about his true intentions or beliefs. He continues to insist he is a Conservative when there is not a single issue he has ever posted to this board that can be construed to be anything but the Leftist agenda. He is a Democrat spokesman's wet dream of someone to articulate and argue the bullshit agenda of the Left.
He disguises his abject Statism, Marxism and Liberalism in a bunch of legal-speak mumbo-jumbo, decreeing that enumerated rights are actually government-granted privileges and 'Rights' protecting perverted behaviors NOT enumerated he says exist in the 'penumbras and emanations' of the plain words, and therefore superior and untouchable - while rights to keep and bear arms can be *reasonably regulated* so as to make it costly or damn near-impossible to exercise without meeting government-mandates.
-
Yep. Guy I know, just a little older than me, says "Politics is all about negotiating. Give them the bump stocks, nobody needs those, in exchange for keeping the ARs". Not sure how he doesn't realize that all that leads to is negotiating away everything.
If you are giving things up for nothing in return, it isn't a real negotiation, it's setting terms of surrender. There is no quid pro quo in me giving up any of my rights or stuff, there are those who simply want me to surrender those with nothing of any value in exchange.
-
If you are giving things up for nothing in return, it isn't a real negotiation, it's setting terms of surrender. There is no quid pro quo in me giving up any of my rights or stuff, there are those who simply want me to surrender those with nothing of any value in exchange.
Important rule of negotiation: Never trade actions for promises. You lose every time.
-
Important rule of negotiation: Never trade actions for promises. You lose every time.
That could also be applied to federal spending
-
That could also be applied to federal spending
That can be applied to everything, friend. Remember that next time you send a friend out for pizza.
-
@INVAR @Smokin Joe @Cyber Liberty
Technology has superseded the human capacity for both intellectual and spiritual capacity for growth.
It isn't keeping up with the "Jones'" anymore. It is keeping up with the next best thing. And it is just a thing. A thing that has no relation to your spirituality or intellect, and especially your humanity. It is fact, something that defies all of the current history of any tribe, village, mainstream religion, a political party or anything like that.
It is something that @libertybele posted. They despise human life.
It is the complete disregard and hatred for humanity. The human form. They have amped up the desecration.
I stand apart.
-
@INVAR @Smokin Joe @Cyber Liberty
Technology has superseded the human capacity for both intellectual and spiritual capacity for growth.
It isn't keeping up with the "Jones'" anymore. It is keeping up with the next best thing. And it is just a thing. A thing that has no relation to your spirituality or intellect, and especially your humanity. It is fact, something that defies all of the current history of any tribe, village, mainstream religion, a political party or anything like that.
It is something that @libertybele posted. They despise human life.
It is the complete disregard and hatred for humanity. The human form. They have amped up the desecration.
I stand apart.
There is nothing new under the sun Fred.
Human nature does not change, despite all the warnings both the bible and our Founders gave us to keep it in check so we might have liberty.
Somehow, our technology has made us gods in our own minds - and has made us dumber and more stupid as a people once they discarded the actual true source of wisdom.