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.
Fox, it's just "moderator" [;)]
Are you saying there are people who get paid for doing this??? [:0] [:0]
But yes, I do like to see people participating in the "other" forums.
shelly, glad to see you here, and that you lost the CAPS lock.
She knows her way around (some) sporting goods, and I'm sure will be an asset to the forums.
I believe that if we pass on the approved paperwork be it a 4473 or a higher grade of paper work for any kind of firearm ...that we should be able to have any gun that we would like to purchase in whatever qty we can afford. Guns are not only useful in hunting, defending or selves and clays etc the are sometimes a work of art. I love the wood and the engraving on the guns. I believe that if the children of america are taught early to respect things like guns and bows etc. that instead of getting into trouble in their youth they will be out in the woods...Teach them early ( morals, respect for elders and each other and honesty and compassion ) and maybe the world will start becoming a better place than it is today
Shelly, glad to hear that you are such a strong supporter of gun rights. Glad to have you here. Stick around. [:D]
There has been a long thread about whether there should be any kind of background checks, etc. Each of us may draw the line concerning this at different points, but I'm confident that other users who frequent the gun rights forum are all on my side.
Shelly;
Wasn't aware you are female. That will make no difference to me if you are anti-gun. I class anti-gunners as unAmerican. Straight up, no B.S., no politically correct nonsense.
This country was born in blood..wrested from an enemy British with RIFLES...Rifles that the British were on the march to collect.
JPFO has done the research..do a web search and read the facts...how in the last hundred years, 150 MILLION souls have been murdered by their governments...AFTER some version of gun registration was instituted.
YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL do exactly the same thing, sometime in the future...HISTORY TELLS US SO....
The Founders DID NOT spill their blood...so that we might quietly go into that long dark night..and it starts by gun registration...
Criminals FEAR the gun in the hand of a CITIZEN...not the police. Think about that a little..as you willingly give over to those in authority the power of life and death.."Registration"...
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Fox, it's just "moderator" [;)]
Are you saying there are people who get paid for doing this??? [:0] [:0]
I was just trying to give you a field commission for all your hard work. And I assumed you and Nunn were probably paid somewhere in the 6 digit figure range for the work you put in. (also be sure and notice the clowns) [:o)][:o)]
Yes, Shelly is a female ..surprise surprise..Ever go to a shot show and realize that the whole industry doesnt even recognize you as important enough to talk to you ..stupid them I carry the checkbook.
As for your banter about the when the constitution was written things have changed, society has changed, people are not what the were back them. So if we want the same rights as when the constitution was written we will have to earn them again..Just because you and some others feel like your rights are being stepped on...which they are... the majority of people are not good anymore therefor all of us loose some of our rights.
Some of these discussions go over and over the same things..people will never agree on religeon, sex, or politics matter of fact they wont agree on the perfect gun or scope..
People will say different things as far as gun ownership is concerned. However to me it just never seems justified to me to treat the average law abiding gun owner as a potential criminal. For example, back in the 1930s: "You want to own a Thompson? We oughta treat you like we'd treat Al Capone." It's not right, but these are the standards that the law abiding gun owners are held to.
Shelly;
People are EXACTLY as they were 'back then'..the Good,the Bad,the Ugly.
As for women in the gun field...I recognized Many years ago that the only hope left for the Second Amendment was to get women interested in shooting.So I trained ANY woman that gave the slightest sign of being interested...Since I am a old country guy..that has only been a couple dozen women...but they have instilled in their children the love of shooting...instead of the normal fear...
Training female shooters is indeed a unique experience....machismo has NO PLACE on the training ground. By and large...within a couple hours I can have a .45 in the hands of a new shooter...and she will be comfortable with one.
On the other end of the spectrum...I once put a limited experience woman on the 600 yard line with a .308...and she outshot a fancy pants swat team member just down the line. He put up his guns after a few rounds...[:D]..We were amused....This lady couldn't even make out the 4 foot by 6 foot target...till she laid down behind the scope...then proceded to shoot 6 and 8 inch groups...
Shelly, it doesn't matter to me if you are male or female. I just think you have some great opinions. Hope you stick around.
[:D]
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Find them wherever. Friends wives, daughters, waitresses,doctors,clerks....you name it. I talk about the subject wherever I go...and offer to train if they are interested.
Point out how defenseless the average woman is...and how the odds are evened with a .38 or .45.
Being a victim is never nice.
Understand,please..that training encompasses far more then merely teaching the mechanics of operating a tool....more important,is "WHEN to shoot"...and when NOT TO...
Please leave the "Manly Man" stuff at home..when training. If you know your stuff..that will be readily apparent.
Don't be surprised if you do your job correctly..that she will be able to outshoot you....
Shelly; The point of my mention about you being a female..has more to do with MY upbringing..then what you are. I was taught to 'respect' women. Took me 50 years to finally understand...an anti-gunner is an anti-gunner..wearing a skirt or pants.
Short story...there is no such thing as a "little gun control"..the end result is ALWAYS mass round ups of citizens..and mass killing by governments.
You should know better than any of us men that women who refuse to be victims are not encouraged by the majority. I refuse to believe that, and am training my daughter to be one of the ones who will never be a victim. I encourage other women who are potential targets to make themselves less attractive to other predators, but they have said before that isn't something for them.
My mother has never shot a gun, but her sons shoot very well, and she couldn't be prouder of them. Her upbringing was that defense of the family is in the hands of the man. My upbringing skewed from that path, in the sense that the 2nd Amendment isn't about men's rights, and should be encouraged to all.
Glad to have you aboard.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
But to answer your question; That form is unConstitutional.
Upholding it..agreeing with it...puts you on the side of the gun controllers.If you are comfortable with that position...I have no choice except to believe that..
1. You are anti-gun.
2. You are uninformed about the stakes involved.This condition can be changed if you have an open mind..and willing to hang around and debate the issue.
I believe I am more pro gun than you are ..since my livelyhood greatly depends on the sale of firearms . I just believe that society has changed. Morals have changed. I dont believe that anyone could have known how the world was going to change over the years when the constitution was written. Things have changed get out and look around you. Go to a highschool, just sit next to some of the younger generation a listen a little. Until we shape up the minor nesense of filling out a ffl ( in which almost everyone is approved ) In 5 years I think we had maybe less then 5 or 6 . People only think about themselves nowadays whats in it for me...scenario
look around..The good people are few and far between
oh..by the way . We antigunners have been teaching our son about guns and bows since he was 2..( with assistance of course ) Shot his first 22 when he was 2....
shelly Posted - 06/02/2005 : 10:41:28 PM
quote:quote:I believe I am more pro gun than you are ..since my livelyhood greatly depends on the sale of firearms . Really ? Some of the most anti-gun people I know have been FFL'S. They lobbied hard for gun control...because restricting firearms has given them market control.They could just as well be selling potato's...for all they believe the Second Amendment.
More pro-gun then I ???? Really ? You see me defending form 4473's..et.al.???
quote:I just believe that society has changed. Morals have changed. I dont believe that anyone could have known how the world was going to change over the years when the constitution was written.
People,let me assure you...have not changed. The exact same vices here today..were here in 1780...What HAS changed..is the national will to punish wrongdoers.
quote:Things have changed get out and look around you. Go to a highschool, just sit next to some of the younger generation a listen a little.
this gives you the right to abridge the Constitution ? The foundation of freedon...and America ? Undermine it..because garbage is allowed to flourish ? Why not clean up the garbage...and stay OUT of decent people's faces ?
Why punish everybody...instead of punishing the guilty ? THAT is one of the pillars of freedom..freedom from governmental interference.
Gunphreak, Amen to your last post. Wow! I think that is two in a row that we have agreed upon![;)]
And is that Highball actually using the word "compromise"?!? What is this world coming to? [:o)]
Shelly, sounds like you run the type of gun shop that I would like to frequent. Ever think about moving to Norther NV? [:D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
actually I am getting tired with this conversation. It seems all you do is say constitution this that ..people were simple back then..Go back to that era then. Wake up and smell the expresso. I will always believe in owning as many guns as I want. In which I have plenty, my children will be raised to respect guns and learn to love nature, and will work in our store as soon as they are able. My little one will sit on the floor with me while I make a string for a bow. What are you giving to the next generation? You actually remind me of an older employee that we had , it was his way or no way. One brand of gun was the best the rest were crap in his eyes and wouldnt budge on his opinions to see that there might be another way of looking at things. I do understand the constitution. We do have unrevicable rights that we are born with. But society has made it to where we are not able to do things like they use to be done. Who in the world would of thought somebody who sue because of a hot coffee that spilt .
quote:Originally posted by shelly
actually I am getting tired with this conversation. It seems all you do is say constitution this that ..people were simple back then..Go back to that era then. Wake up and smell the expresso. I will always believe in owning as many guns as I want. In which I have plenty, my children will be raised to respect guns and learn to love nature, and will work in our store as soon as they are able. My little one will sit on the floor with me while I make a string for a bow. What are you giving to the next generation? You actually remind me of an older employee that we had , it was his way or no way. One brand of gun was the best the rest were crap in his eyes and wouldnt budge on his opinions to see that there might be another way of looking at things. I do understand the constitution. We do have unrevicable rights that we are born with. But society has made it to where we are not able to do things like they use to be done. Who in the world would of thought somebody who sue because of a hot coffee that spilt .
shelly
Why do you think things have changed in the past generation? The statist/collectivist ideologies that took root in the 60's are now working on their third generation. As a result, the notion of personal responsibility has been eroded. Our heritage and our natural rights are a mystery to most people under 50 (I'm 31, btw). The fabric of our society is in terminal decay. And the answer to our ills as a nation is NOT more of the same poison that is slowly killing us already. More forms? Background checks? Give me a break.
That would be fully as expected...."getting tired of the Constitution" would be closer to the truth.
Older guy ? You bet I am....unlike most kids, tho..I was smart enough to start questioning the direction of those in power many years ago. Perhaps some day you too will be old enough to understand the importance of keeping a reign on government. Or perhaps you will blend seamlessly with those in power. Most will.
Every dictator in history had not the slightest trouble getting followers.
These posts are a perfect place to actually start thinking about conditions...instead of merely going with the flow.
Now, you too can join the multitudes on GB that do not and will not read my posts.
Once one starts stepping outside mainstream thinking..the comfort zone is gone. Most will not.
By the way..you are espousing the Constitution as a "Living Document"..as do the liberal Demorats that infest Washington."Living Document" means that whatever the will of the people is at a given time..is the law of the land.
That way lies toward insanity.
To call the US (or even a state constitution) a "living document" CAN be very dangerous to the rights of the citizens contained in those documents.
That phrase CAN mean that a good and honest right that the majority of the citizens thought they would own forever, and be able to pass to their children, suddenly disappears because some person/group/court/judge/legislator who had the power to, interperted the "living constitution" to mean that suddenly you DON'T have that particular right.
Kinda like having the National Football League rule book be a "living document". That could mean that everytime a game was played, the rules could be "changed" by the people in power at the game (referees, coaches, majority of players, majority of fans, etc.).
Or say you rent a house from the landlord and sign a lease stating an attractive and low monthly rent for you for one year. Later the landlord refers to the lease as a "living document" and because of his higher taxes, higher demand for rental houses, etc. he raises your rent.
To ensure a chance at fairness, if someone wants to change the "rules" in ANY legal document, DON'T cheat by going in the back door. Obey those "rules" until and if those rules are changed.
I too cringe at the "Living Document" notion, but if you read the Constitution I believe that in some circumstances this is the only conclusion that can be made. Please see my response to Highball's "Compromise" thread.
The Founding Fathers frequently used ambiguous words and phrases. I can only take this to mean that in some areas they indeed intended for the document to be interpreted at later times. After all, they set up a Supreme Court for this purpose. If the Constitution was black and white then there would be no need for a body to interpret and apply the law.
quote:In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I think the important concept here is that they are bound to interpret LAW, not RIGHTS. Therefore, a law can violate your rights and be struck down, but your rights are inalienable. Unfortunately, some of these rights are described very ambiguously. The real argument is whether in cases of ambiguity the courts should be forced to rule in favor of the citizens, or if it is allowed to apply some level of interpretation.
There is danger in both methods. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for our system to consistently apply one method or the other. Perhaps that is why they used ambiguity in the first place.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
quote:Highball - were you saying that just because I believe that filling out a 4473 that makes me an anti gun person?
Actually, shelly, Highball knows history. You said in earlier posts that your livelihood is in firearms. What do you think would be the next move if tomorrow, a group of ATF agents entered your place of business demanding all of the 4473's? They don't tell you why, and when you refuse, you are arrested?
Highball knows this exact thing led to the deaths of 56 million innocent men women and children throughout the world. This is not theory... it is reality. 4473's do not help the police when a specific firearm is involved in a crime. The only thing the 4473 usually tells the police is who the gun was stolen from.... nothing useful.
Highball also knows that there are two types of anti-gunners.
1. The pawn antigunner. This is the fool who listens to everything the higher players in the gun kontrol movement say, and are in direct fear of everything we hold dear, as a result.
2. The prime movers. These people are in all actuality only partially antigun. In other words, they have a list of those who should be allowed to own guns, and who are just to dangerous or untrustworthy to own them, and you are not on that list.
In addition, should the prime movers of the anti-gun forces be true followers of democracy, the gun provides a trump card to stack the deck against democracy, by the way of making it less easy for a majority to remove the rights of the minority, because 1 armed man can overpower 50 unarmed men (or more), and make his rights stand, regardless of how the vote turned out.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting to see what to eat.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Correct me if I'm wrong, Highball, but I think that summarizes it up in terms everyone can understand.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Shelly,
When we talk about people killed by gun control, what we mean is people who are disarmed by the government, and then killed. Look at the German Jews under Hitler, the people of Russia under Stalin, the people of China under Mao Tse Tung, the people of Uganda, Rwanda, Cambodia, and on and on.
It works like this: Government declared certain people can't own guns. Government proceeds to exterminate group of people it fears or doesn't like.
Don't let Highball scare you away. I understand where he is coming from. He can be somewhat bitter after seeing how far his country has fallen.
We havent gotten to the point where they are demanding the ffl's to be returned..they are in the sole ownership of the actual dealer. Dont you think if it gets to the degree that the goverment is seizing guns from their owners ...the gun stores will protect their ffl's and their guns? Can you actually seize all guns from everyone all at the same exact time..
I think it would be next to impossible to get all firearms. However keep in mind that all FFL holders have to keep a bound book of firearm sales. Clinton Administration raised taxes on FFL holders for the sole purpose of driving some of them out of business. Then who gets the bound book? ATF. It is also widely believed that they keep all information on BG Checks and a copy of the paperwork that comes out instead of destroying them like they are supposed to.
So I think they could get a large percentage of the legally owned guns if they kept the paperwork, or got a hold of the bound books. They wouldn't get any of the criminals guns if they were bought illegally or stolen, however. Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
This is a chart..but did not reproduce.Click the link above to see it on JPFO'S SITE...By the way..the figure is closer to 170 Million...then 56 million.
Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.
The Mother of All Stats
The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
Government Dates Targets Civiliams Killed "Gun Control" Laws Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians
(mostly Christians) 1-1.5 million Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915 Permits required Government list of owners
Ban on possession
Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political opponents;
farming communities 20 million Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 Licensing of owners
Ban on possession
Severe penalties
Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples" 20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938 Registration & Licensing
Stricter handgun laws
Ban on possession
China, Nationalist 1927-1949 Political opponents;
army conscripts; others 10 million Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 Government permit system
Ban on private ownership
China, Red 1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976 Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state 20-35 million Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957 Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"
Guatemala 1960-1981 Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies 100,000-
200,000 Decree 36, Nov 25 Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964 Register guns & owners Licensing with high fees
Prohibit carrying guns
Bans on guns, sharp tools Confiscation powers
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970 Register all guns & owners Licenses for transactions
Warrantless searches Confiscation powers
Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons;
Political enemies 2 million Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
Photo ID with fingerprints License inspected quarterly
Rwanda 1994 Tutsi people 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 Register guns, owners, ammunition Owners must justify
need Concealable guns illegal Confiscating powers
When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.
In the 20th Century:
Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
1. No, I disagree with background checks for purchasing firearms
2. This holds true with private-party transfers
3. I'm against background checks but ok with having to provide proof of adulthood and citizenship (no record of sales should be given to the government)
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
5. If vending machines were magically theft proof and secure, I would have no problem with them being used to sell firearms.
The right to defend one's self, family and country should not be subject to scrutiny and debate. The rule of law does not always keep people safe as there are many who ignore laws. Having to ask the government for permission to acquire self defense safety equipment is like having to ask the government for permission to live out one's natural life.
Yes, some people will acquire arms for malicious purpses, but the law is powerless to prevent that from happening as they will always find a way.
From a constitution standpoint, I agree that convicted felons have gone through due process and legally can be forbidden to arm themselves or do various other things. Since most people, however, are not convicted felons, it is a violation of our rights to assume that we are convicted felons and to thus subject us to an investigation to prove that we are not. This is like submitting us to a strip search to prove we aren't carrying a bomb when we enter a bank or airport boarding area.
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
Well then how in the world can this idea be enforced?
Let's see now, some person wanting to buy a gun walks into a gun dealers showroom and asks to buy a gun. The dealer, trying to provide some kind of reasonable control over not selling guns to crazy or violent people asks "Are you insane, are you actually 10 years old as you seem to look, or you an escaped prisoner (convict) or are you an illegal alien?
Let me think. The perp wants a gun to do some crime and he/she is going to answer all these questions how?
Say someway, somehow, tomorrow a law was passed making it legal to sell guns out of a vending machine. Because of the people that shouldn't have been able to LEGALLY buy a gun, and becasue of what those people would now EASILY BE ABLE TO do with those guns, in about one month (or less) the public backlash about buying guns means that there would be another law OUTLAWING ALL GUNS.
OK, where dealing with the insane, prisoner and minor concepts:
1. The insane. Is it a good idea to let someone out of the asylum (or whatever) if the problem has not been rectified to the satisfaction of the contributing doctors? No. Releasing an untreated, or improperly treated insane person is a time bomb. When the timer goes off, they acquire their tools, and the killing begins. At this point, it does not matter to me where the tools were purchased.
2. The prisoner. A prisoner forfeits rights afforded to the free man by his conduct toward free men and associated as a criminal, to which, in certain areas, should not even be afforded the right to life. They do not have the right to own anything. Once released, they should have all rights reinstated. This might make judges less likely to release menaces to society back onto the streets in the first place. As I stated, earlier, it does not matter to me where the tools of a criminal are purchased; it only matters that they can be stopped.
3. Minors. Being unable to be the legal purchaser of any true property extends to firearms, as well. Creating a ban on minors owning a firearm is redundant and discriminates them categorically, as if they are not trustworthy to even touch a firearm, which is in and of itself, WRONG! Interpretation of the law already disqualifies them from ownership until the legal age is met. Let's just leave it at that.
quote:Dont you think if it gets to the degree that the goverment is seizing guns from their owners ...the gun stores will protect their ffl's and their guns?
Not likely, when at the threat of death for non-compliance. The gun store ffl's will be void. No use in protecting a license to sell illegal items, right? Besides, the feds would not be interesting in some piece of paper permitting the sale of firearms, they would be interested in the names, numbers, types and locations of all purchasers of firearms.
quote:Can you actually seize all guns from everyone all at the same exact time..
Yeah, you can make the ATF able to seize firearms in mass amounts, and the mass media will be their jackboot-licking companions in it, making every raided gun owner look like a traitor to the American way of life as they go, until such have been eradicated.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Yeah, you can make the ATF able to seize firearms in mass amounts, and the mass media will be their jackboot-licking companions in it, making every raided gun owner look like a traitor to the American way of life as they go, until such have been eradicated.
Jeez, that is so true. Some media is making gunownership look bad now.
Somebody posted a link to 50caliberterror.com or something like that. They had a video clip of 60 Minutes talking about how a .50 BMG could shoot down planes, disable tanks, make accurate shots at over a mile, etc. Didn't mention the fact that there haven't been any crimes commited with a .50 BMG.
The media will absoultely never say anything positive about gun owners.
I do have an interesting idea. I think that some of us should watch the propoganda news and occasionally look at the media sites like cnn.com. We could then make a list of all adertisers supporting these causes and email or write them saying that we are boycotting their products until they stop with the advertising of the left-wing biased news sources.
I have already sent messages to Ben & Jerry's saying I won't buy their ice cream because of their anti-gun policies. I got an answer, claiming that they supported the Brady Bill because it "attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals", and because of the Columbine shooting.
Never did they say that all the guns those kids had were illegally owned to begin with.
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
TR Fox Responded:
Well then how in the world can this idea be enforced?
I think that is their point, TR. The folks who say that they don't want illegals, criminals, or minors to own guns, but then refuse to allow a check at the time of purchase are really saying that they wouldn't mind if these types bought guns. Somehow they believe it liberates them in their own firearms purchasing, when really they are just supporting another bogus "feel-good" law that is never intended to be enforced. In order to enforce such a law, one of these individuals would have to be caught commiting ANOTHER crime.
On this thread alone we have presented several ways that we could have anonymous firearms purchases that can check for age, citizenship, and criminal background without keeping any record of what firearm was purchased by an individual, or even if a transaction was completed. But those that believe a background qualifies as "infringement" will never go along with such a system. This is the conundrum we face.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Comments
Are you saying there are people who get paid for doing this??? [:0] [:0]
But yes, I do like to see people participating in the "other" forums.
shelly, glad to see you here, and that you lost the CAPS lock.
She knows her way around (some) sporting goods, and I'm sure will be an asset to the forums.
W.W. what you said sounds REAL familiar. [:(]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
shelly
There has been a long thread about whether there should be any kind of background checks, etc. Each of us may draw the line concerning this at different points, but I'm confident that other users who frequent the gun rights forum are all on my side.
Wasn't aware you are female. That will make no difference to me if you are anti-gun. I class anti-gunners as unAmerican. Straight up, no B.S., no politically correct nonsense.
This country was born in blood..wrested from an enemy British with RIFLES...Rifles that the British were on the march to collect.
JPFO has done the research..do a web search and read the facts...how in the last hundred years, 150 MILLION souls have been murdered by their governments...AFTER some version of gun registration was instituted.
YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL do exactly the same thing, sometime in the future...HISTORY TELLS US SO....
The Founders DID NOT spill their blood...so that we might quietly go into that long dark night..and it starts by gun registration...
Criminals FEAR the gun in the hand of a CITIZEN...not the police. Think about that a little..as you willingly give over to those in authority the power of life and death.."Registration"...
Fox, it's just "moderator" [;)]
Are you saying there are people who get paid for doing this??? [:0] [:0]
I was just trying to give you a field commission for all your hard work. And I assumed you and Nunn were probably paid somewhere in the 6 digit figure range for the work you put in. (also be sure and notice the clowns) [:o)][:o)]
As for your banter about the when the constitution was written things have changed, society has changed, people are not what the were back them. So if we want the same rights as when the constitution was written we will have to earn them again..Just because you and some others feel like your rights are being stepped on...which they are... the majority of people are not good anymore therefor all of us loose some of our rights.
Some of these discussions go over and over the same things..people will never agree on religeon, sex, or politics matter of fact they wont agree on the perfect gun or scope..
shelly
People are EXACTLY as they were 'back then'..the Good,the Bad,the Ugly.
As for women in the gun field...I recognized Many years ago that the only hope left for the Second Amendment was to get women interested in shooting.So I trained ANY woman that gave the slightest sign of being interested...Since I am a old country guy..that has only been a couple dozen women...but they have instilled in their children the love of shooting...instead of the normal fear...
Training female shooters is indeed a unique experience....machismo has NO PLACE on the training ground. By and large...within a couple hours I can have a .45 in the hands of a new shooter...and she will be comfortable with one.
On the other end of the spectrum...I once put a limited experience woman on the 600 yard line with a .308...and she outshot a fancy pants swat team member just down the line. He put up his guns after a few rounds...[:D]..We were amused....This lady couldn't even make out the 4 foot by 6 foot target...till she laid down behind the scope...then proceded to shoot 6 and 8 inch groups...
[:D]
WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
shelly
Find them wherever. Friends wives, daughters, waitresses,doctors,clerks....you name it. I talk about the subject wherever I go...and offer to train if they are interested.
Point out how defenseless the average woman is...and how the odds are evened with a .38 or .45.
Being a victim is never nice.
Understand,please..that training encompasses far more then merely teaching the mechanics of operating a tool....more important,is "WHEN to shoot"...and when NOT TO...
Please leave the "Manly Man" stuff at home..when training. If you know your stuff..that will be readily apparent.
Don't be surprised if you do your job correctly..that she will be able to outshoot you....
Shelly; The point of my mention about you being a female..has more to do with MY upbringing..then what you are. I was taught to 'respect' women. Took me 50 years to finally understand...an anti-gunner is an anti-gunner..wearing a skirt or pants.
Short story...there is no such thing as a "little gun control"..the end result is ALWAYS mass round ups of citizens..and mass killing by governments.
You should know better than any of us men that women who refuse to be victims are not encouraged by the majority. I refuse to believe that, and am training my daughter to be one of the ones who will never be a victim. I encourage other women who are potential targets to make themselves less attractive to other predators, but they have said before that isn't something for them.
My mother has never shot a gun, but her sons shoot very well, and she couldn't be prouder of them. Her upbringing was that defense of the family is in the hands of the man. My upbringing skewed from that path, in the sense that the 2nd Amendment isn't about men's rights, and should be encouraged to all.
Glad to have you aboard.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
shelly
Please read my "Compromise" thread.
But to answer your question; That form is unConstitutional.
Upholding it..agreeing with it...puts you on the side of the gun controllers.If you are comfortable with that position...I have no choice except to believe that..
1. You are anti-gun.
2. You are uninformed about the stakes involved.This condition can be changed if you have an open mind..and willing to hang around and debate the issue.
look around..The good people are few and far between
shelly
shelly
quote:quote:I believe I am more pro gun than you are ..since my livelyhood greatly depends on the sale of firearms . Really ? Some of the most anti-gun people I know have been FFL'S. They lobbied hard for gun control...because restricting firearms has given them market control.They could just as well be selling potato's...for all they believe the Second Amendment.
More pro-gun then I ???? Really ? You see me defending form 4473's..et.al.???
quote:I just believe that society has changed. Morals have changed. I dont believe that anyone could have known how the world was going to change over the years when the constitution was written.
People,let me assure you...have not changed. The exact same vices here today..were here in 1780...What HAS changed..is the national will to punish wrongdoers.
quote:Things have changed get out and look around you. Go to a highschool, just sit next to some of the younger generation a listen a little.
this gives you the right to abridge the Constitution ? The foundation of freedon...and America ? Undermine it..because garbage is allowed to flourish ? Why not clean up the garbage...and stay OUT of decent people's faces ?
Why punish everybody...instead of punishing the guilty ? THAT is one of the pillars of freedom..freedom from governmental interference.
And is that Highball actually using the word "compromise"?!? What is this world coming to? [:o)]
Shelly, sounds like you run the type of gun shop that I would like to frequent. Ever think about moving to Norther NV? [:D]
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
'Tis indeed obvious that you didn't open that thread and read it...[:D]
shelly
shelly
actually I am getting tired with this conversation. It seems all you do is say constitution this that ..people were simple back then..Go back to that era then. Wake up and smell the expresso. I will always believe in owning as many guns as I want. In which I have plenty, my children will be raised to respect guns and learn to love nature, and will work in our store as soon as they are able. My little one will sit on the floor with me while I make a string for a bow. What are you giving to the next generation? You actually remind me of an older employee that we had , it was his way or no way. One brand of gun was the best the rest were crap in his eyes and wouldnt budge on his opinions to see that there might be another way of looking at things. I do understand the constitution. We do have unrevicable rights that we are born with. But society has made it to where we are not able to do things like they use to be done. Who in the world would of thought somebody who sue because of a hot coffee that spilt .
shelly
Why do you think things have changed in the past generation? The statist/collectivist ideologies that took root in the 60's are now working on their third generation. As a result, the notion of personal responsibility has been eroded. Our heritage and our natural rights are a mystery to most people under 50 (I'm 31, btw). The fabric of our society is in terminal decay. And the answer to our ills as a nation is NOT more of the same poison that is slowly killing us already. More forms? Background checks? Give me a break.
JPFO Life Member
www.jpfo.org
Older guy ? You bet I am....unlike most kids, tho..I was smart enough to start questioning the direction of those in power many years ago. Perhaps some day you too will be old enough to understand the importance of keeping a reign on government. Or perhaps you will blend seamlessly with those in power. Most will.
Every dictator in history had not the slightest trouble getting followers.
These posts are a perfect place to actually start thinking about conditions...instead of merely going with the flow.
Now, you too can join the multitudes on GB that do not and will not read my posts.
Once one starts stepping outside mainstream thinking..the comfort zone is gone. Most will not.
By the way..you are espousing the Constitution as a "Living Document"..as do the liberal Demorats that infest Washington."Living Document" means that whatever the will of the people is at a given time..is the law of the land.
That way lies toward insanity.
That phrase CAN mean that a good and honest right that the majority of the citizens thought they would own forever, and be able to pass to their children, suddenly disappears because some person/group/court/judge/legislator who had the power to, interperted the "living constitution" to mean that suddenly you DON'T have that particular right.
Kinda like having the National Football League rule book be a "living document". That could mean that everytime a game was played, the rules could be "changed" by the people in power at the game (referees, coaches, majority of players, majority of fans, etc.).
Or say you rent a house from the landlord and sign a lease stating an attractive and low monthly rent for you for one year. Later the landlord refers to the lease as a "living document" and because of his higher taxes, higher demand for rental houses, etc. he raises your rent.
To ensure a chance at fairness, if someone wants to change the "rules" in ANY legal document, DON'T cheat by going in the back door. Obey those "rules" until and if those rules are changed.
JMHO
The Founding Fathers frequently used ambiguous words and phrases. I can only take this to mean that in some areas they indeed intended for the document to be interpreted at later times. After all, they set up a Supreme Court for this purpose. If the Constitution was black and white then there would be no need for a body to interpret and apply the law.
quote:In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
I think the important concept here is that they are bound to interpret LAW, not RIGHTS. Therefore, a law can violate your rights and be struck down, but your rights are inalienable. Unfortunately, some of these rights are described very ambiguously. The real argument is whether in cases of ambiguity the courts should be forced to rule in favor of the citizens, or if it is allowed to apply some level of interpretation.
There is danger in both methods. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for our system to consistently apply one method or the other. Perhaps that is why they used ambiguity in the first place.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Actually, shelly, Highball knows history. You said in earlier posts that your livelihood is in firearms. What do you think would be the next move if tomorrow, a group of ATF agents entered your place of business demanding all of the 4473's? They don't tell you why, and when you refuse, you are arrested?
Highball knows this exact thing led to the deaths of 56 million innocent men women and children throughout the world. This is not theory... it is reality. 4473's do not help the police when a specific firearm is involved in a crime. The only thing the 4473 usually tells the police is who the gun was stolen from.... nothing useful.
Highball also knows that there are two types of anti-gunners.
1. The pawn antigunner. This is the fool who listens to everything the higher players in the gun kontrol movement say, and are in direct fear of everything we hold dear, as a result.
2. The prime movers. These people are in all actuality only partially antigun. In other words, they have a list of those who should be allowed to own guns, and who are just to dangerous or untrustworthy to own them, and you are not on that list.
In addition, should the prime movers of the anti-gun forces be true followers of democracy, the gun provides a trump card to stack the deck against democracy, by the way of making it less easy for a majority to remove the rights of the minority, because 1 armed man can overpower 50 unarmed men (or more), and make his rights stand, regardless of how the vote turned out.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting to see what to eat.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Correct me if I'm wrong, Highball, but I think that summarizes it up in terms everyone can understand.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
ok educate me?
shelly
When we talk about people killed by gun control, what we mean is people who are disarmed by the government, and then killed. Look at the German Jews under Hitler, the people of Russia under Stalin, the people of China under Mao Tse Tung, the people of Uganda, Rwanda, Cambodia, and on and on.
It works like this: Government declared certain people can't own guns. Government proceeds to exterminate group of people it fears or doesn't like.
Don't let Highball scare you away. I understand where he is coming from. He can be somewhat bitter after seeing how far his country has fallen.
shelly
So I think they could get a large percentage of the legally owned guns if they kept the paperwork, or got a hold of the bound books. They wouldn't get any of the criminals guns if they were bought illegally or stolen, however. Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.
This is a chart..but did not reproduce.Click the link above to see it on JPFO'S SITE...By the way..the figure is closer to 170 Million...then 56 million.
Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.
The Mother of All Stats
The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
Government Dates Targets Civiliams Killed "Gun Control" Laws Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians
(mostly Christians) 1-1.5 million Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915 Permits required Government list of owners
Ban on possession
Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political opponents;
farming communities 20 million Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 Licensing of owners
Ban on possession
Severe penalties
Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples" 20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938 Registration & Licensing
Stricter handgun laws
Ban on possession
China, Nationalist 1927-1949 Political opponents;
army conscripts; others 10 million Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 Government permit system
Ban on private ownership
China, Red 1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976 Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state 20-35 million Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957 Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"
Guatemala 1960-1981 Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies 100,000-
200,000 Decree 36, Nov 25 Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964 Register guns & owners Licensing with high fees
Prohibit carrying guns
Bans on guns, sharp tools Confiscation powers
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970 Register all guns & owners Licenses for transactions
Warrantless searches Confiscation powers
Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons;
Political enemies 2 million Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
Photo ID with fingerprints License inspected quarterly
Rwanda 1994 Tutsi people 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 Register guns, owners, ammunition Owners must justify
need Concealable guns illegal Confiscating powers
When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.
In the 20th Century:
Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
2. This holds true with private-party transfers
3. I'm against background checks but ok with having to provide proof of adulthood and citizenship (no record of sales should be given to the government)
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
5. If vending machines were magically theft proof and secure, I would have no problem with them being used to sell firearms.
The right to defend one's self, family and country should not be subject to scrutiny and debate. The rule of law does not always keep people safe as there are many who ignore laws. Having to ask the government for permission to acquire self defense safety equipment is like having to ask the government for permission to live out one's natural life.
Yes, some people will acquire arms for malicious purpses, but the law is powerless to prevent that from happening as they will always find a way.
From a constitution standpoint, I agree that convicted felons have gone through due process and legally can be forbidden to arm themselves or do various other things. Since most people, however, are not convicted felons, it is a violation of our rights to assume that we are convicted felons and to thus subject us to an investigation to prove that we are not. This is like submitting us to a strip search to prove we aren't carrying a bomb when we enter a bank or airport boarding area.
http://Blog.LestDarknessFall.com
http://LestDarknessFall.com
quote:
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
Well then how in the world can this idea be enforced?
Let's see now, some person wanting to buy a gun walks into a gun dealers showroom and asks to buy a gun. The dealer, trying to provide some kind of reasonable control over not selling guns to crazy or violent people asks "Are you insane, are you actually 10 years old as you seem to look, or you an escaped prisoner (convict) or are you an illegal alien?
Let me think. The perp wants a gun to do some crime and he/she is going to answer all these questions how?
Say someway, somehow, tomorrow a law was passed making it legal to sell guns out of a vending machine. Because of the people that shouldn't have been able to LEGALLY buy a gun, and becasue of what those people would now EASILY BE ABLE TO do with those guns, in about one month (or less) the public backlash about buying guns means that there would be another law OUTLAWING ALL GUNS.
1. The insane. Is it a good idea to let someone out of the asylum (or whatever) if the problem has not been rectified to the satisfaction of the contributing doctors? No. Releasing an untreated, or improperly treated insane person is a time bomb. When the timer goes off, they acquire their tools, and the killing begins. At this point, it does not matter to me where the tools were purchased.
2. The prisoner. A prisoner forfeits rights afforded to the free man by his conduct toward free men and associated as a criminal, to which, in certain areas, should not even be afforded the right to life. They do not have the right to own anything. Once released, they should have all rights reinstated. This might make judges less likely to release menaces to society back onto the streets in the first place. As I stated, earlier, it does not matter to me where the tools of a criminal are purchased; it only matters that they can be stopped.
3. Minors. Being unable to be the legal purchaser of any true property extends to firearms, as well. Creating a ban on minors owning a firearm is redundant and discriminates them categorically, as if they are not trustworthy to even touch a firearm, which is in and of itself, WRONG! Interpretation of the law already disqualifies them from ownership until the legal age is met. Let's just leave it at that.
quote:Dont you think if it gets to the degree that the goverment is seizing guns from their owners ...the gun stores will protect their ffl's and their guns?
Not likely, when at the threat of death for non-compliance. The gun store ffl's will be void. No use in protecting a license to sell illegal items, right? Besides, the feds would not be interesting in some piece of paper permitting the sale of firearms, they would be interested in the names, numbers, types and locations of all purchasers of firearms.
quote:Can you actually seize all guns from everyone all at the same exact time..
Yeah, you can make the ATF able to seize firearms in mass amounts, and the mass media will be their jackboot-licking companions in it, making every raided gun owner look like a traitor to the American way of life as they go, until such have been eradicated.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
quote:
Yeah, you can make the ATF able to seize firearms in mass amounts, and the mass media will be their jackboot-licking companions in it, making every raided gun owner look like a traitor to the American way of life as they go, until such have been eradicated.
Jeez, that is so true. Some media is making gunownership look bad now.
The media will absoultely never say anything positive about gun owners.
I do have an interesting idea. I think that some of us should watch the propoganda news and occasionally look at the media sites like cnn.com. We could then make a list of all adertisers supporting these causes and email or write them saying that we are boycotting their products until they stop with the advertising of the left-wing biased news sources.
I have already sent messages to Ben & Jerry's saying I won't buy their ice cream because of their anti-gun policies. I got an answer, claiming that they supported the Brady Bill because it "attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals", and because of the Columbine shooting.
Never did they say that all the guns those kids had were illegally owned to begin with.
quote:
4. It's ok with me to bar the insane, minors, prisoners and non-citizens arms, but there should be no background check to enforce this.
TR Fox Responded:
Well then how in the world can this idea be enforced?
I think that is their point, TR. The folks who say that they don't want illegals, criminals, or minors to own guns, but then refuse to allow a check at the time of purchase are really saying that they wouldn't mind if these types bought guns. Somehow they believe it liberates them in their own firearms purchasing, when really they are just supporting another bogus "feel-good" law that is never intended to be enforced. In order to enforce such a law, one of these individuals would have to be caught commiting ANOTHER crime.
On this thread alone we have presented several ways that we could have anonymous firearms purchases that can check for age, citizenship, and criminal background without keeping any record of what firearm was purchased by an individual, or even if a transaction was completed. But those that believe a background qualifies as "infringement" will never go along with such a system. This is the conundrum we face.
-WW
"...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
-The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.