In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well lets see, 50,000 members, 3%. If I am right that 1500.
Where are the other 1490+. Not much a pep rally guys![}:)]
Can't you get more of the 3% motivated than this???[;)]
Jim, you will never break through to some of these guys. They basically want loaded guns sold from vending machines. Save yourself some headaches and give up on them. I did.
Oh, heck, I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment and enjoy rolling around in the mud with you misguided but otherwise basically fairly decent fellows.
So, one simple and direct question to you:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Because I know of no sellers that have a gun shop set up in any penal institution in this country, which is the proper place for violent criminals. If an individual has been released from incarceration, and the debt to society has been paid, then that individual should have their rights fully restored. If there is any question at all about that individual being able to function and be a productive, law-abiding citizen, they should never be released.
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
originally posted by trfox:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Because I know of no sellers that have a gun shop set up in any penal institution in this country, which is the proper place for violent criminals. If an individual has been released from incarceration, and the debt to society has been paid, then that individual should have their rights fully restored. If there is any question at all about that individual being able to function and be a productive, law-abiding citizen, they should never be released.
BE CAREFUL ws, you COULD solve society's ills with common sense solutions like that. [;)]
quote:Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
The Founders intended violent animals be hung from the nearest lightpole or tree.
Your question is therefore not germane to the discussion.
The instant society turns a man loose after `paying his debt to society'...his Rights are restored to him.
Just because the weak-kneed spavined womanized culture we have today is unable to do what is right does NOT give them the right to limit my freedoms.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 09/07/2008
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well lets see, 50,000 members, 3%. If I am right that 1500.
Where are the other 1490+. Not much a pep rally guys![}:)]
Can't you get more of the 3% motivated than this???[;)]
Jim, you will never break through to some of these guys. They basically want loaded guns sold from vending machines. Save yourself some headaches and give up on them. I did.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 09/07/2008
Oh, heck, I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment and enjoy rolling around in the mud with you misguided but otherwise basically fairly decent fellows.
So, one simple and direct question to you:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 04/06/2008
It will be a cold day in hell before you see me reading or posting on the gun rights forum part of GB.com.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It has been said so well by so many.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
quote:In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
This has been explained to you over and over and over and over.
It is painfully obvious what we are dealing with, here.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
This has been explained to you over and over and over and over.
It is painfully obvious what we are dealing with, here.
I know you are a busy man, what with your keyboard wars and all, but why don't you explain it to me again in 100 words or less? That would give me another chance to be "enlightened" and also might help any readers of this thread that might be of the unlikely type in they are also interested in your response.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two categories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals commit crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another example, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
There are a number of ways to answer this:
1. Those that are deemed incapable of exercising restraint with a firearm are also incapable of exercising restraint with a knife, a ball bat, a hockey stick, etc. They should be eliminated or perpetually incarcerated. Transitional housing can be used to closely monitor those that are moving from the complete control of lock up back into polite society. Once proven capable of assimilation, all rights are restored.
2. Selling a weapon, be it a firearm or a combat knife, to anyone requires a judgement call by the seller. Yes there are too many that would sell to anyone, but again, controlling the law abiding has no effect on those that do not abide.
3. I cannot get my head around the concept of the fall-back position that 'Well, its OK, that gun was illegally owned.' A person harmed another with a weapon. That person is the only thing that is important, and that person should be controlled. (I know you are not suggesting it is OK, but the concept is a PR position, not a position designed to prevent harm to the innocent.)
Fact: The only way to keep weapons out of the hands of those that would cause harm is to completely eliminate every weapon in the country. (Edit) Alternatively we could completely isolate those that would harm from society. Which is better in keeping with the freedoms and liberties that should be America? (End Edit) No amount of regulation and control, no amount of labelling 'legal' or 'illegal' will have any impact.
Specifically, it is a people problem, not a pistol problem, and it cannot be addressed by regulating the pistol.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
HB,
Hi, it's me again.
And you are wrong again. We do not hang those folks, many are given light sentences and then relased early. MORE OF THE REALITY MANY HERE CONTINUE TO DENY but we MUST FACE! Like I have said MANY times, you are not living in the real world, only the world you WISH WERE SO![;)]
Yes, Jin..you are back.
The very first post indicates that not only have you not thought about the previous discussions...you failed to comprehend the present one.
I think you will find that I mentioned the FOUNDERS...when I spoke of hanging criminals.
Those men had the courage to do what was right...unlike the feminized, weak-kneed pissants that call themselves `men' today.
You look at the world and see what is.
Fine..I fully UNDERSTAND that !!
I look at the world and see what WAS...what IS...and WHAT IT SHOULD BE !!
Unless you have a concept of better things...you cannot drive towards them. You are totally unable to grasp that concept ..and you have demonstrated that again and again and AGAIN !!
You look at crime and buy into the insanity that the way to solve that is to punish the great body of people that will never commit a serious crime.
I look at a crime and DEMAND A HANGING...right NOW...not 20 years later.
A trial, conviction, and hanging OUGHT to be the work of a month...NOT 20 YEARS !!
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two categories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals commit crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another example, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
There are a number of ways to answer this:
1. Those that are deemed incapable of exercising restraint with a firearm are also incapable of exercising restraint with a knife, a ball bat, a hockey stick, etc. They should be eliminated or perpetually incarcerated. Transitional housing can be used to closely monitor those that are moving from the complete control of lock up back into polite society. Once proven capable of assimilation, all rights are restored. While you seem reasonable, I fear you are confused as are many here. In the preceding paragraph, you seriously contradict yourself. You cannot link your "....eliminated or perpetually incarcerate." along with "those that are moving.....back into polite society." You cannot have both
2. Selling a weapon, be it a firearm or a combat knife, to anyone requires a judgement call by the seller. Yes there are too many that would sell to anyone, but again, controlling the law abiding has no effect on those that do not abide. And I will ask again. How do you, as a seller, make that "judgement" call? If you have no first-hand, personal information about the potential buyer, how do you know if you are selling to a responsible person? Unless someone/agency tracks and provides that information to you.
3. I cannot get my head around the concept of the fall-back position that 'Well, its OK, that gun was illegally owned.' A person harmed another with a weapon. That person is the only thing that is important, and that person should be controlled. (I know you are not suggesting it is OK, but the concept is a PR position, not a position designed to prevent harm to the innocent.) Kinda like football players getting injured by each other. They are engaging in "legal" combat. But gangs fighting on the street are engaging in"illegal" combat. Usually "legal" things/actions do not scare the general population into passing even more restrictive laws (usually laws that only impact the already legal) as does "illegal" things/actions
Fact: The only way to keep weapons out of the hands of those that would cause harm is to completely eliminate every weapon in the country. (Edit) Alternatively we could completely isolate those that would harm from society. Which is better in keeping with the freedoms and liberties that should be America? (End Edit) No amount of regulation and control, no amount of labelling 'legal' or 'illegal' will have any impact. Well, yeah, labellng a known, convicted violent criminal as it being "illegal" for him/her to buy/own/ posses a firearm means that criminal has to go about obtaining his firearm (we all know he/she will) in an "illegal" manner. Having to do this will make it just a little bit (or sometimes a lot) harder to obtain a firearm. In addition he might have to settle for the firearm he can obtain and will not be able to get the one he really wants. But even when he gets one and does his crime, people like me (and probably the majority of society) will not blame the "legal" gun owners for the actions of an "illegal" gun owning criminal.
Specifically, it is a people problem, not a pistol problem, and it cannot be addressed by regulating the pistol. Partly true. But it cannot be addressed by total non-regulation of the people either
To state it simply, yes, you can have both. It is holding people responsible for their actions, and if they are a threat to society, you prevent them from re-entering society. Putting teeth back into the legal system by locking up violent felons until we are sure they are no longer a risk.
It is, as stated by earlier posters, a return to a justice system that truly holds people accountable for their actions, and sequesters those that cannot be depended upon to be accountable. The revolving doors of our prisons necessitate form 4473, and the re-introduction of those that have completed those benchmarks required for a complete return to society will have all rights fully restored.
It is not as you state, total non-regulation of people. It is eliminating or regulating only those people that have proven they need to be regulated.
I should be obvious that regulating the transfer of firearms in the manner you suggest, and the manner that is being pursued with the 'Gun Show Loophole' banner, can only be accomplished through the complete elimination of private gun sales. I must assume that this is what you (and others) advocate.
If this assumption is incorrect, please explain how we get around this.
In general, my view is that government can control people who have proven themselves to be a threat, or government can control all arms sales. Is there a practical middle ground?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
To state it simply, yes, you can have both. It is holding people responsible for their actions, and if they are a threat to society, you prevent them from re-entering society. Putting teeth back into the legal system by locking up violent felons until we are sure they are no longer a risk.
It is, as stated by earlier posters, a return to a justice system that truly holds people accountable for their actions, and sequesters those that cannot be depended upon to be accountable. The revolving doors of our prisons necessitate form 4473, and the re-introduction of those that have completed those benchmarks required for a complete return to society will have all rights fully restored.
It is not as you state, total non-regulation of people. It is eliminating or regulating only those people that have proven they need to be regulated.
I should be obvious that regulating the transfer of firearms in the manner you suggest, and the manner that is being pursued with the 'Gun Show Loophole' banner, can only be accomplished through the complete elimination of private gun sales. I must assume that this is what you (and others) advocate. No, I do not advocate that. But if a convicted, violent criminal comes to you and wants to purchase your firearm, he/she WILL NOT tell you they a violent criminal. So you cannot know. So the other side of that coin is to have a procedure whereas the lawful buyers can prove they are lawful. I CAN provide proof to you that I am NOT a violent criminal. Just for one example, I would not mind a procedure whereas I could visit my local police station, present valid id, and come away with a police report of any history of violent criminal activities I might have. If what I present to you allows you to believe I am a lawful person whom you can feel confident about selling your gun to me, then go ahead and sell it. If there is a better/easier way for you to determine my character, then use that way. But I don't know of anyother way.
If this assumption is incorrect, please explain how we get around this.
In general, my view is that government can control people who have proven themselves to be a threat, or government can control all arms sales. Is there a practical middle ground?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
No, I do not advocate that. But if a convicted, violent criminal comes to you and wants to purchase your firearm, he/she WILL NOT tell you they a violent criminal. So you cannot know. So the other side of that coin is to have a procedure whereas the lawful buyers can prove they are lawful. I CAN provide proof to you that I am NOT a violent criminal. Just for one example, I would not mind a procedure whereas I could visit my local police station, present valid id, and come away with a police report of any history of violent criminal activities I might have. If what I present to you allows you to believe I am a lawful person whom you can feel confident about selling your gun to me, then go ahead and sell it. If there is a better/easier way for you to determine my character, then use that way. But I don't know of anyother way.[/red] [/size=2]
The burden of proof, in your example will always be on the seller. The seller will be obligated to retain and present said proof at any time a government official requests that proof. Therefore, it is effectively advocating government control/oversight of every firearm sale that occurs, forcing any private seller to maintain records as required by FFL holders today. Without these records, they will face whatever enforcement mechanism that would be put in place to verify sales to approved people.
It eliminates private sales of firearms, as a private sale that requires inspect-able documentation is no longer private.
It implements complete records of ownership and transfer traceability of all firearms.
How is this any different than advocating the banning of all private sales? Lipstick on a pig, as it were.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Unlikely, Jim...to ever happen.
The country is made up of people like you..willing to allow a government to push you around at will...and unwilling to defend the Constitution.
Your smart remark changes nothing in the debate of right versus wrong..and you remain on the wrong side.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It has been said so well by so many.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
Anyone still alive and not in prison should fit that description nicely.
HB,wsfiredude,it496, rtkba4ever i have been following closely all you guys responses here lately. Just to let you guys know keep it up it is working you are making a difference. I to have been guilty of supporting the NRA and its policies and but no longer! As of last week i have called them and cancelled my membership. I will no longer support any organazation that so willfully craps on the Constitution! I thought i was a supporter of the Constitutioin but after a little common sense thought and research ive seen otherwise. i reject any and all infrinments of mine and yours and everyone elses Constitutional rights be it the 2nd amendment or any of the others for that matter! Keep it up you guys your 3% just got a little bigger!
HB,wsfiredude,it496, rtkba4ever i have been following closely all you guys responses here lately. Just to let you guys know keep it up it is working you are making a difference. I to have been guilty of supporting the NRA and its policies and but no longer! As of last week i have called them and cancelled my membership. I will no longer support any organazation that so willfully craps on the Constitution! I thought i was a supporter of the Constitutioin but after a little common sense thought and research ive seen otherwise. i reject any and all infrinments of mine and yours and everyone elses Constitutional rights be it the 2nd amendment or any of the others for that matter! Keep it up you guys your 3% just got a little bigger!
brickmaster,
[;)][:D]. A man that can think for himself. A rarity these days.
To trfox and others who consistently bombard a few on here with , "Well, what are you doing for gun rights?" (Actually, it's "the right of the people" not "the right of the gun", but we'll save that for later discussion).
Being vigilant in posting the truth will provoke more folks to do research, and ask questions, like;
"What does the RTKBA really mean?"
"Does this candidate/entity/organization that I support really stand behind the Constitution, and if not, then why should I continue to support them?"
So, to answer the question of, "What are you doing for RTKBA?"
Simple; We are just stating the truth. That's it. That's all it is, and for some, that is all it takes.
As usual,.....this has become another argument about the same issue.
Do we "bend over" 95% plus, of the population, to "protect" us falsely, from perhaps 5% or less?
Freedom, and self reliance is a "bummer" in todays world, as one must take responsibility for their own actions.
It seems much more convenient to feel "secure" in the myriad of laws that are not enforced, and to invent even more.
It makes the masses of sheep "feel good", even though no effect is seen.
I wish someone could show me evidence that ANY of these inane procedures, and laws, have prevented a criminal mind from carrying out what is in their diseased craniums!
Fire away,........IF you can.[xx(]
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
HB,wsfiredude,it496, rtkba4ever i have been following closely all you guys responses here lately. Just to let you guys know keep it up it is working you are making a difference. I to have been guilty of supporting the NRA and its policies and but no longer! As of last week i have called them and cancelled my membership. I will no longer support any organazation that so willfully craps on the Constitution! I thought i was a supporter of the Constitutioin but after a little common sense thought and research ive seen otherwise. i reject any and all infrinments of mine and yours and everyone elses Constitutional rights be it the 2nd amendment or any of the others for that matter! Keep it up you guys your 3% just got a little bigger!
Glad to hear it Brick.
The world certainly needs more men and women that can think for themselves. One's that are not too lazy to do a little research.
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
HB,wsfiredude,it496, rtkba4ever i have been following closely all you guys responses here lately. Just to let you guys know keep it up it is working you are making a difference. I to have been guilty of supporting the NRA and its policies and but no longer! As of last week i have called them and cancelled my membership. I will no longer support any organazation that so willfully craps on the Constitution! I thought i was a supporter of the Constitutioin but after a little common sense thought and research ive seen otherwise. i reject any and all infrinments of mine and yours and everyone elses Constitutional rights be it the 2nd amendment or any of the others for that matter! Keep it up you guys your 3% just got a little bigger!
[^][^]Brother Brick. [;)]
I appreciate your posting this. It makes a difference to know that some are listening, verifying information and thinking for themselves.
Wow.After reading some of these posts, I have to go throw up.
TRFOX- Your gun control advocacy never ceases to amaze. It is impressive how you never let logic get in the way of your positions.
quote:Originally posted by Canary * no. 1
And for the Lords sake..there is Salzo !! ANOTHER fine candidate for inclusion !!
You post so infrequently ..mores the pity !! Your posts are always eagerly read, for my part.
Salzo, absolutely.
A big yes on Brother brick also.
You know, we need to pull this together again.
It is getting spread out on different threads again and frankly, I am losing track of those recently inducted and their numbers and those proposed and mentioned for membership.
quote:It is getting spread out on different threads again and frankly, I am losing track of those recently inducted and their numbers and those proposed and mentioned for membership.
You, TOO ? I feel better now...though it was just ME, here...[:D]
We have Inducted Loko No. 10....
There is a half-dozen more that have been mentioned..but no response from them yet.
KyPlumber is also a likely candidate.
Frankly...I am AMAZED beyond all recognition..I just never realized there were this many. We are truly blessed.
All this 'talk' on on these 'threads'!!![:(]
As I said when I got involved hundreds of posts ago.[|)]
It all boils down to way it should be, IDEALISM! Compared to how it will be, REALISM! [;)]
Bye the way HB, I spent my life supporting and defending the constitution. I have the wounds/scars to show it. You wouldn't have any idea, other than talk, what it means to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION!!![V]
Wasn't even aware of the direction this thread had taken. Another one!!![;)] Better pay more attention.
Jim, judging from your posts, you have no idea what it is to defend the Constitution. You have deluded yourseld into thinking that "compromise" is defense. Nothing even close to defending. The process for ANY changes to the COnstitution is NEVER followed. I think the only thing about these compromises is that both sides agree to ignore her. Much to our detriment. If she was adhered to as intended, we would still be what we were, what was intended. But instead, we ignore and are nearing the end of the great experiment. How the founders could have been so far sighted (they knew this would happen) and our present society could be so short sighted, is incredible. It boils down to this...we have become a self centered society.
Wolf,
Check your facts before you put your foot in your mouth!!![|)]
I guess you must not know how to read!! If you do check back at what hsa been said over last month or so!!![;)]
Sorry Jim Rau;
You have spent your life defending what you imagined to be the Constitution.
It is perfectly apparent to any well-schooled ten year old you have little clue into Original Intent...instead you will defend to the death the polluted, feminized, twisted version in vogue today.
I truly feel sorry for you guys!![:(]
If we do lose the right to Keep and Bear Arms, which I will defend to the death, it will be because of people like you!!![:(!]
Willing to 'rant', and personaly attack others, but not act!!![:(!]
I wish you a good day, but then in your IDEAL world everyday is a good day!!![}:)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I truly feel sorry for you guys!![:(]
If we do lose the right to Keep and Bear Arms, which I will defend to the death, it will be because of people like you!!![:(!]
Willing to 'rant', and personaly attack others, but not act!!![:(!]
I wish you a good day, but then in your IDEAL world everyday is a good day!!![}:)]
Our hands are NOT dirty, from comprimise. People like you are. If there is ANYONE to blame for gun control, it is those that INSIST on "comprimise" because THAT is "reality" type.
The anti's never had a toe hold , until your types justified them.
Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back Jimmy.
Comments
Well lets see, 50,000 members, 3%. If I am right that 1500.
Where are the other 1490+. Not much a pep rally guys![}:)]
Can't you get more of the 3% motivated than this???[;)]
Jim, you will never break through to some of these guys. They basically want loaded guns sold from vending machines. Save yourself some headaches and give up on them. I did.
So, one simple and direct question to you:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Because I know of no sellers that have a gun shop set up in any penal institution in this country, which is the proper place for violent criminals. If an individual has been released from incarceration, and the debt to society has been paid, then that individual should have their rights fully restored. If there is any question at all about that individual being able to function and be a productive, law-abiding citizen, they should never be released.
originally posted by trfox:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
Because I know of no sellers that have a gun shop set up in any penal institution in this country, which is the proper place for violent criminals. If an individual has been released from incarceration, and the debt to society has been paid, then that individual should have their rights fully restored. If there is any question at all about that individual being able to function and be a productive, law-abiding citizen, they should never be released.
BE CAREFUL ws, you COULD solve society's ills with common sense solutions like that. [;)]
The Founders intended violent animals be hung from the nearest lightpole or tree.
Your question is therefore not germane to the discussion.
The instant society turns a man loose after `paying his debt to society'...his Rights are restored to him.
Just because the weak-kneed spavined womanized culture we have today is unable to do what is right does NOT give them the right to limit my freedoms.
We couldn't have that, could we?[;)][:D]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Well lets see, 50,000 members, 3%. If I am right that 1500.
Where are the other 1490+. Not much a pep rally guys![}:)]
Can't you get more of the 3% motivated than this???[;)]
Jim, you will never break through to some of these guys. They basically want loaded guns sold from vending machines. Save yourself some headaches and give up on them. I did.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 09/07/2008
Oh, heck, I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment and enjoy rolling around in the mud with you misguided but otherwise basically fairly decent fellows.
So, one simple and direct question to you:
Did the authors of the Second Amendment intend for it to allow for firearm ownership of convicted, violent criminals? If your answer is "yes" then of course you are wrong.
If your answer is "no" then please tell me how a seller can differniate between lawful citizens and those violent criminals?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox on 04/06/2008
It will be a cold day in hell before you see me reading or posting on the gun rights forum part of GB.com.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.
Brad Steele
It has been said so well by so many.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
This has been explained to you over and over and over and over.
It is painfully obvious what we are dealing with, here.
quote:In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
This has been explained to you over and over and over and over.
It is painfully obvious what we are dealing with, here.
I know you are a busy man, what with your keyboard wars and all, but why don't you explain it to me again in 100 words or less? That would give me another chance to be "enlightened" and also might help any readers of this thread that might be of the unlikely type in they are also interested in your response.
Thank you very much.
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two categories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals commit crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another example, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
There are a number of ways to answer this:
1. Those that are deemed incapable of exercising restraint with a firearm are also incapable of exercising restraint with a knife, a ball bat, a hockey stick, etc. They should be eliminated or perpetually incarcerated. Transitional housing can be used to closely monitor those that are moving from the complete control of lock up back into polite society. Once proven capable of assimilation, all rights are restored.
2. Selling a weapon, be it a firearm or a combat knife, to anyone requires a judgement call by the seller. Yes there are too many that would sell to anyone, but again, controlling the law abiding has no effect on those that do not abide.
3. I cannot get my head around the concept of the fall-back position that 'Well, its OK, that gun was illegally owned.' A person harmed another with a weapon. That person is the only thing that is important, and that person should be controlled. (I know you are not suggesting it is OK, but the concept is a PR position, not a position designed to prevent harm to the innocent.)
Fact: The only way to keep weapons out of the hands of those that would cause harm is to completely eliminate every weapon in the country. (Edit) Alternatively we could completely isolate those that would harm from society. Which is better in keeping with the freedoms and liberties that should be America? (End Edit) No amount of regulation and control, no amount of labelling 'legal' or 'illegal' will have any impact.
Specifically, it is a people problem, not a pistol problem, and it cannot be addressed by regulating the pistol.
Brad Steele
Hi, it's me again.
And you are wrong again. We do not hang those folks, many are given light sentences and then relased early. MORE OF THE REALITY MANY HERE CONTINUE TO DENY but we MUST FACE! Like I have said MANY times, you are not living in the real world, only the world you WISH WERE SO![;)]
The very first post indicates that not only have you not thought about the previous discussions...you failed to comprehend the present one.
I think you will find that I mentioned the FOUNDERS...when I spoke of hanging criminals.
Those men had the courage to do what was right...unlike the feminized, weak-kneed pissants that call themselves `men' today.
You look at the world and see what is.
Fine..I fully UNDERSTAND that !!
I look at the world and see what WAS...what IS...and WHAT IT SHOULD BE !!
Unless you have a concept of better things...you cannot drive towards them. You are totally unable to grasp that concept ..and you have demonstrated that again and again and AGAIN !!
You look at crime and buy into the insanity that the way to solve that is to punish the great body of people that will never commit a serious crime.
I look at a crime and DEMAND A HANGING...right NOW...not 20 years later.
A trial, conviction, and hanging OUGHT to be the work of a month...NOT 20 YEARS !!
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two categories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals commit crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another example, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
There are a number of ways to answer this:
1. Those that are deemed incapable of exercising restraint with a firearm are also incapable of exercising restraint with a knife, a ball bat, a hockey stick, etc. They should be eliminated or perpetually incarcerated. Transitional housing can be used to closely monitor those that are moving from the complete control of lock up back into polite society. Once proven capable of assimilation, all rights are restored. While you seem reasonable, I fear you are confused as are many here. In the preceding paragraph, you seriously contradict yourself. You cannot link your "....eliminated or perpetually incarcerate." along with "those that are moving.....back into polite society." You cannot have both
2. Selling a weapon, be it a firearm or a combat knife, to anyone requires a judgement call by the seller. Yes there are too many that would sell to anyone, but again, controlling the law abiding has no effect on those that do not abide. And I will ask again. How do you, as a seller, make that "judgement" call? If you have no first-hand, personal information about the potential buyer, how do you know if you are selling to a responsible person? Unless someone/agency tracks and provides that information to you.
3. I cannot get my head around the concept of the fall-back position that 'Well, its OK, that gun was illegally owned.' A person harmed another with a weapon. That person is the only thing that is important, and that person should be controlled. (I know you are not suggesting it is OK, but the concept is a PR position, not a position designed to prevent harm to the innocent.) Kinda like football players getting injured by each other. They are engaging in "legal" combat. But gangs fighting on the street are engaging in"illegal" combat. Usually "legal" things/actions do not scare the general population into passing even more restrictive laws (usually laws that only impact the already legal) as does "illegal" things/actions
Fact: The only way to keep weapons out of the hands of those that would cause harm is to completely eliminate every weapon in the country. (Edit) Alternatively we could completely isolate those that would harm from society. Which is better in keeping with the freedoms and liberties that should be America? (End Edit) No amount of regulation and control, no amount of labelling 'legal' or 'illegal' will have any impact. Well, yeah, labellng a known, convicted violent criminal as it being "illegal" for him/her to buy/own/ posses a firearm means that criminal has to go about obtaining his firearm (we all know he/she will) in an "illegal" manner. Having to do this will make it just a little bit (or sometimes a lot) harder to obtain a firearm. In addition he might have to settle for the firearm he can obtain and will not be able to get the one he really wants. But even when he gets one and does his crime, people like me (and probably the majority of society) will not blame the "legal" gun owners for the actions of an "illegal" gun owning criminal.
Specifically, it is a people problem, not a pistol problem, and it cannot be addressed by regulating the pistol. Partly true. But it cannot be addressed by total non-regulation of the people either
To state it simply, yes, you can have both. It is holding people responsible for their actions, and if they are a threat to society, you prevent them from re-entering society. Putting teeth back into the legal system by locking up violent felons until we are sure they are no longer a risk.
It is, as stated by earlier posters, a return to a justice system that truly holds people accountable for their actions, and sequesters those that cannot be depended upon to be accountable. The revolving doors of our prisons necessitate form 4473, and the re-introduction of those that have completed those benchmarks required for a complete return to society will have all rights fully restored.
It is not as you state, total non-regulation of people. It is eliminating or regulating only those people that have proven they need to be regulated.
I should be obvious that regulating the transfer of firearms in the manner you suggest, and the manner that is being pursued with the 'Gun Show Loophole' banner, can only be accomplished through the complete elimination of private gun sales. I must assume that this is what you (and others) advocate.
If this assumption is incorrect, please explain how we get around this.
In general, my view is that government can control people who have proven themselves to be a threat, or government can control all arms sales. Is there a practical middle ground?
Brad Steele
trfox:
To state it simply, yes, you can have both. It is holding people responsible for their actions, and if they are a threat to society, you prevent them from re-entering society. Putting teeth back into the legal system by locking up violent felons until we are sure they are no longer a risk.
It is, as stated by earlier posters, a return to a justice system that truly holds people accountable for their actions, and sequesters those that cannot be depended upon to be accountable. The revolving doors of our prisons necessitate form 4473, and the re-introduction of those that have completed those benchmarks required for a complete return to society will have all rights fully restored.
It is not as you state, total non-regulation of people. It is eliminating or regulating only those people that have proven they need to be regulated.
I should be obvious that regulating the transfer of firearms in the manner you suggest, and the manner that is being pursued with the 'Gun Show Loophole' banner, can only be accomplished through the complete elimination of private gun sales. I must assume that this is what you (and others) advocate. No, I do not advocate that. But if a convicted, violent criminal comes to you and wants to purchase your firearm, he/she WILL NOT tell you they a violent criminal. So you cannot know. So the other side of that coin is to have a procedure whereas the lawful buyers can prove they are lawful. I CAN provide proof to you that I am NOT a violent criminal. Just for one example, I would not mind a procedure whereas I could visit my local police station, present valid id, and come away with a police report of any history of violent criminal activities I might have. If what I present to you allows you to believe I am a lawful person whom you can feel confident about selling your gun to me, then go ahead and sell it. If there is a better/easier way for you to determine my character, then use that way. But I don't know of anyother way.
If this assumption is incorrect, please explain how we get around this.
In general, my view is that government can control people who have proven themselves to be a threat, or government can control all arms sales. Is there a practical middle ground?
No, I do not advocate that. But if a convicted, violent criminal comes to you and wants to purchase your firearm, he/she WILL NOT tell you they a violent criminal. So you cannot know. So the other side of that coin is to have a procedure whereas the lawful buyers can prove they are lawful. I CAN provide proof to you that I am NOT a violent criminal. Just for one example, I would not mind a procedure whereas I could visit my local police station, present valid id, and come away with a police report of any history of violent criminal activities I might have. If what I present to you allows you to believe I am a lawful person whom you can feel confident about selling your gun to me, then go ahead and sell it. If there is a better/easier way for you to determine my character, then use that way. But I don't know of anyother way.[/red] [/size=2]
The burden of proof, in your example will always be on the seller. The seller will be obligated to retain and present said proof at any time a government official requests that proof. Therefore, it is effectively advocating government control/oversight of every firearm sale that occurs, forcing any private seller to maintain records as required by FFL holders today. Without these records, they will face whatever enforcement mechanism that would be put in place to verify sales to approved people.
It eliminates private sales of firearms, as a private sale that requires inspect-able documentation is no longer private.
It implements complete records of ownership and transfer traceability of all firearms.
How is this any different than advocating the banning of all private sales? Lipstick on a pig, as it were.
Brad Steele
Let me know when your 'DEMANDS' are met!!![;)]
The country is made up of people like you..willing to allow a government to push you around at will...and unwilling to defend the Constitution.
Your smart remark changes nothing in the debate of right versus wrong..and you remain on the wrong side.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It has been said so well by so many.
The founders envisioned a lot of what could go wrong, but I would suggest that the rejection of personal responsibility by such a large portion of our society was not one of those.
Personal responsibility is being eliminated concurrent with the reduction in liberties and freedom. An obvious correlation that is lost on many. The more people are regulated, the less they feel responsible for their actions. Again, an obvious correlation.
Personal freedom and liberty beget personal responsibility as well as require it. As HB noted, gun rights in today's America are directed at controlling those that abide by the law, whereas the proper action is to control those that do not.
In red above. Very, very true. But the first step in doing as you suggest is to make sure you have two catagories of gun owners. The legal and the illegal gun owners. Then when the criminals committ crimes with their illegal guns, and the majority of the public who does not own guns suggests outlawing ALL guns, we legal gun owners can counter with the fact that only the ILLEGAL gun owners are causing the problem.
For another examaple, if you yourself want to sell a gun, don't you want some way to be sure you are not selling to a convicted, violent criminal who may be very, very likely to use that gun against an innocent person (maybe you or a loved one)? So if true, how can you be able to think you are selling to a lawful citizen if there is not some way to tell the difference?
Anyone still alive and not in prison should fit that description nicely.
HB,wsfiredude,it496, rtkba4ever i have been following closely all you guys responses here lately. Just to let you guys know keep it up it is working you are making a difference. I to have been guilty of supporting the NRA and its policies and but no longer! As of last week i have called them and cancelled my membership. I will no longer support any organazation that so willfully craps on the Constitution! I thought i was a supporter of the Constitutioin but after a little common sense thought and research ive seen otherwise. i reject any and all infrinments of mine and yours and everyone elses Constitutional rights be it the 2nd amendment or any of the others for that matter! Keep it up you guys your 3% just got a little bigger!
brickmaster,
[;)][:D]. A man that can think for himself. A rarity these days.
To trfox and others who consistently bombard a few on here with , "Well, what are you doing for gun rights?" (Actually, it's "the right of the people" not "the right of the gun", but we'll save that for later discussion).
Being vigilant in posting the truth will provoke more folks to do research, and ask questions, like;
"What does the RTKBA really mean?"
"Does this candidate/entity/organization that I support really stand behind the Constitution, and if not, then why should I continue to support them?"
So, to answer the question of, "What are you doing for RTKBA?"
Simple; We are just stating the truth. That's it. That's all it is, and for some, that is all it takes.
Do we "bend over" 95% plus, of the population, to "protect" us falsely, from perhaps 5% or less?
Freedom, and self reliance is a "bummer" in todays world, as one must take responsibility for their own actions.
It seems much more convenient to feel "secure" in the myriad of laws that are not enforced, and to invent even more.
It makes the masses of sheep "feel good", even though no effect is seen.
I wish someone could show me evidence that ANY of these inane procedures, and laws, have prevented a criminal mind from carrying out what is in their diseased craniums!
Fire away,........IF you can.[xx(]
HB,wsfiredude,it496, rtkba4ever i have been following closely all you guys responses here lately. Just to let you guys know keep it up it is working you are making a difference. I to have been guilty of supporting the NRA and its policies and but no longer! As of last week i have called them and cancelled my membership. I will no longer support any organazation that so willfully craps on the Constitution! I thought i was a supporter of the Constitutioin but after a little common sense thought and research ive seen otherwise. i reject any and all infrinments of mine and yours and everyone elses Constitutional rights be it the 2nd amendment or any of the others for that matter! Keep it up you guys your 3% just got a little bigger!
Glad to hear it Brick.
The world certainly needs more men and women that can think for themselves. One's that are not too lazy to do a little research.
Welcome to reality friend.
HB,wsfiredude,it496, rtkba4ever i have been following closely all you guys responses here lately. Just to let you guys know keep it up it is working you are making a difference. I to have been guilty of supporting the NRA and its policies and but no longer! As of last week i have called them and cancelled my membership. I will no longer support any organazation that so willfully craps on the Constitution! I thought i was a supporter of the Constitutioin but after a little common sense thought and research ive seen otherwise. i reject any and all infrinments of mine and yours and everyone elses Constitutional rights be it the 2nd amendment or any of the others for that matter! Keep it up you guys your 3% just got a little bigger!
[^][^]Brother Brick. [;)]
I appreciate your posting this. It makes a difference to know that some are listening, verifying information and thinking for themselves.
Freedom, and self reliance is a "bummer" in todays world, as one must take responsibility for their own actions.
There are some people, on both sides of the camp, that call this "anarchy". Go figure...
Allow me to thank YOU...for having the intellectual honesty to step out and make that public statement.
Takes a Man to do so..and there are precious few out there. Perhaps down the line you might consider the Canary * an asset to your resume'. [:D]
TRFOX- Your gun control advocacy never ceases to amaze. It is impressive how you never let logic get in the way of your positions.
Great topic highball.
You post so infrequently ..mores the pity !! Your posts are always eagerly read, for my part.
And for the Lords sake..there is Salzo !! ANOTHER fine candidate for inclusion !!
You post so infrequently ..mores the pity !! Your posts are always eagerly read, for my part.
Salzo, absolutely.
A big yes on Brother brick also.
You know, we need to pull this together again.
It is getting spread out on different threads again and frankly, I am losing track of those recently inducted and their numbers and those proposed and mentioned for membership.
You, TOO ? I feel better now...though it was just ME, here...[:D]
We have Inducted Loko No. 10....
There is a half-dozen more that have been mentioned..but no response from them yet.
KyPlumber is also a likely candidate.
Frankly...I am AMAZED beyond all recognition..I just never realized there were this many. We are truly blessed.
As I said when I got involved hundreds of posts ago.[|)]
It all boils down to way it should be, IDEALISM! Compared to how it will be, REALISM! [;)]
Bye the way HB, I spent my life supporting and defending the constitution. I have the wounds/scars to show it. You wouldn't have any idea, other than talk, what it means to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION!!![V]
Jim, judging from your posts, you have no idea what it is to defend the Constitution. You have deluded yourseld into thinking that "compromise" is defense. Nothing even close to defending. The process for ANY changes to the COnstitution is NEVER followed. I think the only thing about these compromises is that both sides agree to ignore her. Much to our detriment. If she was adhered to as intended, we would still be what we were, what was intended. But instead, we ignore and are nearing the end of the great experiment. How the founders could have been so far sighted (they knew this would happen) and our present society could be so short sighted, is incredible. It boils down to this...we have become a self centered society.
Check your facts before you put your foot in your mouth!!![|)]
I guess you must not know how to read!! If you do check back at what hsa been said over last month or so!!![;)]
You have spent your life defending what you imagined to be the Constitution.
It is perfectly apparent to any well-schooled ten year old you have little clue into Original Intent...instead you will defend to the death the polluted, feminized, twisted version in vogue today.
If we do lose the right to Keep and Bear Arms, which I will defend to the death, it will be because of people like you!!![:(!]
Willing to 'rant', and personaly attack others, but not act!!![:(!]
I wish you a good day, but then in your IDEAL world everyday is a good day!!![}:)]
I truly feel sorry for you guys!![:(]
If we do lose the right to Keep and Bear Arms, which I will defend to the death, it will be because of people like you!!![:(!]
Willing to 'rant', and personaly attack others, but not act!!![:(!]
I wish you a good day, but then in your IDEAL world everyday is a good day!!![}:)]
Our hands are NOT dirty, from comprimise. People like you are. If there is ANYONE to blame for gun control, it is those that INSIST on "comprimise" because THAT is "reality" type.
The anti's never had a toe hold , until your types justified them.
Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back Jimmy.