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.
Options
Would you sell........................
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
a firearm to a person that you suspected of having a violent criminal history.
Comments
Now, before you gather a few more 'no' answers, then leap in with what you think is a 'gotcha moment' that this is an example of 'gun control', how about grasping the difference between private individuals, exercising their free choice and government actions which are limited by the Constitution.
There is a difference, a massive one.
1) Reasonable suspicion leads to...
2) Investigation which leads to...
3) Probable cause which leads to an...
4) Arrest warrant, or grand jury indictment, which leads to...
5) Arrest.
You cannot arrest persons on reasonable suspicion. When you boil it down LEO's deprive you of our Constitutional rights when they ARREST you, NOT when they suspect you.
Just for your information, I wouldn't sell a gun to an OLD MAN with DIMENTIA, like you, either.
Lance
No, but that is my personal opinion. There should be NO laws preventing it. If they are a convicted felon they should be locked up or dead. If the LEO's have enough evidence then they should be locked up. You see TR it goes as follows:
1) Reasonable suspicion leads to...
2) Investigation which leads to...
3) Probable cause which leads to an...
4) Arrest warrant, or grand jury indictment, which leads to...
5) Arrest.
You cannot arrest persons on reasonable suspicion. When you boil it down LEO's deprive you of our Constitutional rights when they ARREST you, NOT when they suspect you.
Just for your information, I wouldn't sell a gun to an OLD MAN with DIMENTIA, like you, either.
Lance
No offense taken as I have all the guns and ammo I will ever need. BTW, the police DO arrest you when they suspect you. In fact, everyone arrested is a SUSPECT until tried in court.
Nope, that would rightfully be up to whoever is selling the firearm, private sale or retail sale.
Now, before you gather a few more 'no' answers, then leap in with what you think is a 'gotcha moment' that this is an example of 'gun control', how about grasping the difference between private individuals, exercising their free choice and government actions which are limited by the Constitution.
There is a difference, a massive one.
So are you saying that private citizens can violate my constitutional rights and should be allowed to get away with it?
No
If we are under totally uninfringed gun rights it would appear to me that you would be depriving that violent criminal to his constitutional right to purchase a firearm. True or not?
So are you saying that private citizens can violate my constitutional rights and should be allowed to get away with it?
Did you sleep through elementary school civics?
The Constitution limits the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not private citizens.
For example, Freedom of Expression.
You, tr fox, would not be subject to federal prosecution if you called your boss a mentally-challenged *.
You could, however, get fired if he discovered your opinion. [:)]
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
So are you saying that private citizens can violate my constitutional rights and should be allowed to get away with it?
Did you sleep through elementary school civics?
The Constitution limits the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not private citizens.
For example, Freedom of Expression.
You, tr fox, would not be subject to federal prosecution if you called your boss a mentally-challenged *.
You could, however, get fired if he discovered your opinion. [:)]
In red above. Partially false. Of course the constitution limits the power of the federal government and I believe all other governments. But at the same time it also bestows rights upon the citizens. Free speech, free association, gun rights, etc. So if an individual violates your rights, then they have done just that. Violated your rights and ARE subject to prosecution.
Or are you saying that while the US Government cannot violate your constitutional rights, that any and all citizens can do so?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Nope, that would rightfully be up to whoever is selling the firearm, private sale or retail sale.
Now, before you gather a few more 'no' answers, then leap in with what you think is a 'gotcha moment' that this is an example of 'gun control', how about grasping the difference between private individuals, exercising their free choice and government actions which are limited by the Constitution.
There is a difference, a massive one.
So are you saying that private citizens can violate my constitutional rights and should be allowed to get away with it?
What private citizen would be violating your constitutional rights by choosing to not sell you a firearm, for whatever the reason and how would that BE a violation of your 'constitutional rights'?
quote:Originally posted by zink
No, but that is my personal opinion. There should be NO laws preventing it. If they are a convicted felon they should be locked up or dead. If the LEO's have enough evidence then they should be locked up. You see TR it goes as follows:
1) Reasonable suspicion leads to...
2) Investigation which leads to...
3) Probable cause which leads to an...
4) Arrest warrant, or grand jury indictment, which leads to...
5) Arrest.
You cannot arrest persons on reasonable suspicion. When you boil it down LEO's deprive you of our Constitutional rights when they ARREST you, NOT when they suspect you.
Just for your information, I wouldn't sell a gun to an OLD MAN with DIMENTIA, like you, either.
Lance
No offense taken as I have all the guns and ammo I will ever need. BTW, the police DO arrest you when they suspect you. In fact, everyone arrested is a SUSPECT until tried in court.
With all due respect TR, people are not arrested for being a mere suspect, there has been enough evidence presented to a judge, or grand jury, that a reasonably prudent person would believe that a crime had been committed and the NAMED person committed the crime. At that time they are no longer a suspect but a person charged with this crime until further persons decide that he is innocent.
A suspect is a person suspect of a crime, it goes one step further when the preponderance of evidence shows he is the perpetrator.
Lance
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Nope, that would rightfully be up to whoever is selling the firearm, private sale or retail sale.
Now, before you gather a few more 'no' answers, then leap in with what you think is a 'gotcha moment' that this is an example of 'gun control', how about grasping the difference between private individuals, exercising their free choice and government actions which are limited by the Constitution.
There is a difference, a massive one.
So are you saying that private citizens can violate my constitutional rights and should be allowed to get away with it?
What private citizen would be violating your constitutional rights by choosing to not sell you a firearm, for whatever the reason and how would that BE a violation of your 'constitutional rights'?
You probably know that sometimes when a crime is committed and the perpatators of that crime get off in court they are sometimes charged in federal court for, among other things, a civil rights violation. The same should be true of someone violating my so-called uninfringed gun rights by not selling me a firearm just because I happen to be a violent felon. That is how unrestricted constitutional rights work.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by zink
No, but that is my personal opinion. There should be NO laws preventing it. If they are a convicted felon they should be locked up or dead. If the LEO's have enough evidence then they should be locked up. You see TR it goes as follows:
1) Reasonable suspicion leads to...
2) Investigation which leads to...
3) Probable cause which leads to an...
4) Arrest warrant, or grand jury indictment, which leads to...
5) Arrest.
You cannot arrest persons on reasonable suspicion. When you boil it down LEO's deprive you of our Constitutional rights when they ARREST you, NOT when they suspect you.
Just for your information, I wouldn't sell a gun to an OLD MAN with DIMENTIA, like you, either.
Lance
No offense taken as I have all the guns and ammo I will ever need. BTW, the police DO arrest you when they suspect you. In fact, everyone arrested is a SUSPECT until tried in court.
With all due respect TR, people are not arrested for being a mere suspect, there has been enough evidence presented to a judge, or grand jury, that a reasonably prudent person would believe that a crime had been committed and the NAMED person committed the crime. At that time they are no longer a suspect but a person charged with this crime until further persons decide that he is innocent.
A suspect is a person suspect of a crime, it goes one step further when the preponderance of evidence shows he is the perpetrator.
Lance
Sorry Lance,but you are stepping on your own logic. In red above. That "preponderance" is not decided upon until the judge/jury reaches a decision. Until that time the suspect is just that. A suspect. Otherwise, if you logic is true, once that "preponderance" is recognized, why even bother to go to court. According to you that person is already guilty.
quote:Originally posted by zink
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by zink
No, but that is my personal opinion. There should be NO laws preventing it. If they are a convicted felon they should be locked up or dead. If the LEO's have enough evidence then they should be locked up. You see TR it goes as follows:
1) Reasonable suspicion leads to...
2) Investigation which leads to...
3) Probable cause which leads to an...
4) Arrest warrant, or grand jury indictment, which leads to...
5) Arrest.
You cannot arrest persons on reasonable suspicion. When you boil it down LEO's deprive you of our Constitutional rights when they ARREST you, NOT when they suspect you.
Just for your information, I wouldn't sell a gun to an OLD MAN with DIMENTIA, like you, either.
Lance
No offense taken as I have all the guns and ammo I will ever need. BTW, the police DO arrest you when they suspect you. In fact, everyone arrested is a SUSPECT until tried in court.
With all due respect TR, people are not arrested for being a mere suspect, there has been enough evidence presented to a judge, or grand jury, that a reasonably prudent person would believe that a crime had been committed and the NAMED person committed the crime. At that time they are no longer a suspect but a person charged with this crime until further persons decide that he is innocent.
A suspect is a person suspect of a crime, it goes one step further when the preponderance of evidence shows he is the perpetrator.
Lance
Sorry Lance,but you are stepping on your own logic. In red above. That "preponderance" is not decided upon until the judge/jury reaches a decision. Until that time the suspect is just that. A suspect. Otherwise, if you logic is true, once that "preponderance" is recognized, why even bother to go to court. According to you that person is already guilty.
Not true TR, You need to study your mall manual. Evidence is what get an indictment and then conviction. The investigation reveals the evidence to turn a person from a suspect to one charged. Preponderance of evidence also refers that presented to a judge grand jury to issue a warrant. In 9 1/2 tears of law enforcement only one case went to court (the rest were pled out). This is because the evidence I supplied was enough. 100% conviction rate (about 200 cases). I did not seek indictment until I could convince my worst critic the person was guilty, me.
You argue for the sake of arguing, even when evidence has shown you are wrong. I am through with you.
Lance
But at the same time it also bestows rights upon the citizens. Free speech, free association, gun rights, etc. So if an individual violates your rights, then they have done just that. Violated your rights and ARE subject to prosecution.
No, they aren't.
a firearm to a person that you suspected of having a violent criminal history.
Unless I know for a fact he( or she) has a" violent criminal past" I'm going to sell him( or her) the firearm.
TR, how about I SUSPECT you are mentally insane.
Should YOU be prevented from owning a gun, just because I THINK you are crazy?
where are you going with this, besides the usual back and forth?
Would you sell a car to a person with multible DUI convictions? If the answer is no, how would you know? Are you saying that, as an individual, we should be required to do background checks before selling anything deadly to another individual? Sound silly? Read how many people are killed by DUI every year as appossed to the number killed criminally by firearms. The gun death numbers used by the liberal media INCLUDE those that were justified defense and even officer's shooting in the line of duty. Personally, I do not want to have to check a persons history in oreder to determin if I should sell them a knife, car, hammer, crowbar, motorcycle, ALL deadly instruments. Government involvment in private lives is a slippery slope that I would rather not go down.
Get a life Paul Blart.
People often get confused over "Constitutional Rights". A private citizen cannot violate your Constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights lists what the Federal Government CANNOT do, not what you CAN do. Thats why the phrase "Congress shall pass no law that..." is a common one. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, we already have the rights. The Bill of Rights prevents the Government from infringing on those rights. For instance: if someone was publicly speaking about a topic I disagreed with and I tied them up and put duct tape over their mouth I would be charged with unlawful inprisonment (at least here in NY) not violating their Consitutional right to free speech. If an agent of the Government tied them up and put duct tape over their mouth that would be violating their right to free speech being said agent is acting on behalf of the Government. That being said I can decide to sell or not to sell to anyone without violating their rights under the 2nd Amd.
I have two sons, who will one day inherit some of my property from me. One son is mentally ill, but has never been "adjudicated," so he could pass a NICS check. Even so, he will not inherit a firearm from my estate. He will get a check, and the other son will get the guns.
How will you know if the firearm you are selling is going into the hands of a violent person with violent, criminal plans? If you don't want to knowingly sell to a violent criminal, just how will you sort out the lawful people from the unlawful?
One way would be for the lawful people to indentify themselves (driver's license, etc) and for the unlawful people to be on an unlawful list. Then you could simply compare the names of the potential buyer to the names on the list of unlawful people.
What the hell is wrong with that? Unless of course you are one of those who have no qualms about selling to a violent criminal.
If I knew the person had a violent criminal history and was currently illegally denied the right of possession of a firearm, I would not sell to him, as I would be running afoul of an illegal law.
If I knew the person had a violent criminal history, yet knew him well enough to trust him, AND it was not illegal to sell to him, I would have no problem doing so.
It is about personal responsibility, which is why the word 'face' appears in face to face. The seller can look the buyer in the eye and make a determination.
Apparently, Mr. Fox, you are fully on board with the RNC, DNC and the Bradys in their efforts to close the gun show loophole. You fully support 100% government oversight of all firearm transactions. Your claims of support for the 2nd Amendment ring hollow when you (apparently) support what can only result in 100% regulation of firearm transfers and 100% registration of firearms.
We must all ask ourselves, and I implore you to honestly ask yourself what good the 2nd Amendment is if the very institution it is designed to protect us against is the gatekeeper.
You claim to be active in this fight. It would be good to have active people actually fighting for the true purpose rather than twisting the 2nd into some self-defense right because they fear an armed criminal more than they fear an all-powerful government.
Brad Steele
[:)]
Lance
I know, I can't spell and I am rambling, but my question to this topic is WHERE DOES IT STOP?
BTW, you never answered my question on your last thread. Do you ever answer questions or just ask them?
Gangsta bling, baggy sagging pants, gang tattoos, or white power neo-Nazi tattoos will disqualify a buyer for me real quick.
Gangsta bling, baggy sagging pants, gang tattoos, or white power neo-Nazi tattoos will disqualify a buyer for me real quick.
Yup..as have I. Merely talking to somebody, and having that 'sense' that something is not right is enough for me. No sale...and I at one time went to a gun show every week, setting up.
Common sense would dictate a 'No' to this question... would it not?
While I am quoting you, I am directing this at everyone who answered that they would not sell to a known criminal.
My question is: would you sell to a criminal if you didn't know they were a criminal?
Stupid question right? Wrong. If there is no way for a seller to determine who is a violent criminal and who isn't (for example the NICS insta check) how the hell are you going to know if you are selling to a violent criminal AND GOING AGAINST YOUR POSITION OF NOT WANTING TO SELL TO A VIOLENT CRIMINAL?
And once you have that process of checking for violent criminals in place you now have a level of gun control. And so many here bleet for absolutely no gun control what-so-ever.
So, what is it going to be you who want absolutely no gun control what-so-ever? Are you going to risk selling to a violent criminal or do you want a modest level of gun control? You can't have it both ways, so which way do you want it?
quote]a firearm to a person that you suspected of having a violent criminal history.
MOST CURRENT POST ;
quote:My question is: would you sell to a criminal if you didn't know they were a criminal?[/quote]
The other thing I would never do is sell a weapon to a stupid person, either.
I expect society to deal with vicious animals after they take possession of them. If society turns them loose, tough snit...not my problem of keeping up with them.
And YOU don't get to deal off my God Given Rights just because your bowels turn to water at the thought of a citizen with a weapon, or having the courage to DEMAND from your Masters that they punish criminals properly.
My question is: would you sell to a criminal if you didn't know they were a criminal?
Stupid question right? Wrong. If there is no way for a seller to determine who is a violent criminal and who isn't (for example the NICS insta check) how the hell are you going to know if you are selling to a violent criminal AND GOING AGAINST YOUR POSITION OF NOT WANTING TO SELL TO A VIOLENT CRIMINAL?
And once you have that process of checking for violent criminals in place you now have a level of gun control. And so many here bleet for absolutely no gun control what-so-ever.
So, what is it going to be you who want absolutely no gun control what-so-ever? Are you going to risk selling to a violent criminal or do you want a modest level of gun control? You can't have it both ways, so which way do you want it?
'I' am going to risk selling in a free market, with decisions being made by individual citizens.
'You' are a government gun-control supporter.
'We' live in a Constitutional Republic, where our government is expressly prohibited from infringing on a citizens RKBA.
There is often a price to pay for the true exercise of individual liberty in a free-society.
YOU are simply unwilling, afraid, or simply philosophically opposed to allowing individuals to exercise their God-given rights and you are also unwilling to hold government to the constraints that are CLEARLY placed upon it by our very Constitution.
Why do you think you are so reviled around her, Fox?
Get a clue, please.
quote:I am directing this at everyone who answered that they would not sell to a known criminal.
My question is: would you sell to a criminal if you didn't know they were a criminal?
Stupid question right? Wrong. If there is no way for a seller to determine who is a violent criminal and who isn't (for example the NICS insta check) how the hell are you going to know if you are selling to a violent criminal AND GOING AGAINST YOUR POSITION OF NOT WANTING TO SELL TO A VIOLENT CRIMINAL?
And once you have that process of checking for violent criminals in place you now have a level of gun control. And so many here bleet for absolutely no gun control what-so-ever.
So, what is it going to be you who want absolutely no gun control what-so-ever? Are you going to risk selling to a violent criminal or do you want a modest level of gun control? You can't have it both ways, so which way do you want it?
'I' am going to risk selling in a free market, with decisions being made by individual citizens.
'You' are a government gun-control supporter.
'We' live in a Constitutional Republic, where our government is expressly prohibited from infringing on a citizens RKBA.
There is often a price to pay for the true exercise of individual liberty in a free-society. YOU are simply unwilling, afraid, or simply philosophically opposed to allowing individuals to exercise their God-given rights and you are also unwilling to hold government to the constraints that are CLEARLY placed upon it by our very Constitution.
Why do you think you are so reviled around her, Fox?
Get a clue, please.
Freedom has a price at times as said above.
To me it is worth it 100%
Should i be allowed a firearm?
I dont think im dangerous. I had a knife in my pocket and a rifle in the trunk.
What's a "pedo"?
Pedophile.