Democrats' ignorance on guns guns is why they'll never pass another ban, plus the Supreme Court

[CLAX1911]

My definition of a “murderous weapon” would be an A.R. 15. Why? The AR-15 is a weapon designed, first and foremost, to kill enemy combatants on a battlefield

The AR-15 fires bullets at such a high velocity — often in a barrage of 30 or even 100 in rapid succession — that it can eviscerate multiple people in seconds. A single bullet lands with a shock wave intense enough to blow apart a skull and demolish vital organs.

Do us all a favor and never switch to the Democratic Party. There’s too much integrity in it for you.

I'm sorry to break it to you but all pistols rifles shotguns muzzleloaders whatever everything that's considered a farm fires bullets at such a high velocity and with succession that can eviscerate to Target that's what they're for all of them ever.

Is switching to the Democratic party means that I have to be this profoundly ignorant about guns no for that alone hell no.

 

[CLAX1911]

Aren't those two things very similar, since gun owners would feel they were being punished?

Everybody would be punished by the removal of Rights

I have an entirely different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Let me guess it's the ku Klux Klan interpretation did you really learn your history.

I have a more restrictive interpretation that prioritizes the role of a "well-regulated militia".

So it's definitely the ku Klux Klan interpretation.

I see this through the eyes of our Founding Fathers, who passed the 2nd Amendment in 1791.

No You see It through The eyes of the ku Klux Klan who wanted to say there's not really a right to own firearms so they could get away with lynching freed slaves without being shot at. That's the only reason you're being told to oppose guns so that the government can oppress that's the only reason ever to Van weapons there's nothing else.

Armed militia had played a vital role in by working in conjunction with the Continental Army, which was disbanded in 1783. One year later, in 1784, the 1st Infantry Regiment was established. The 2nd Amendment was passed just six years later.

Militia does not disband. It is the people who live in the community. In order for it to disband in town has to be abandoned.

Local towns and villages had no organized armed police department, and it was the men who were farmers, ranchers, store owners, etc., the men who lived in these remote villages in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York. These were the men that were meant to be protected by the 2nd Amendment, they were the actual 'militia' in the language of the 2nd Amendment.

No that's not the language of the second amendment the only thing it says about militia is that it's necessary for the security of the Free State your interpreting into it more things to justify your ku Klux Klan views. You really need to learn your history and learn how to read sentences.

These men were the local 'army', although they were not requited to join the 1st Infantry Regiment. They were there for the defense and protection of the local citizens. Today, that would equate to our National Guard.

Militia is not army it's not national guard. If it was we wouldn't call the national guard the national guard we would call it the militia.

So you don't know what you're talking about you're trying to interpret meanings to support your KKK view and you don't know what you're talking about.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;

Seems like that puts a kibosh on everything you said.

To keep and bear arms is to have and carry. And since the militia is just ordinary people that means me and you.

a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,” -James Madison

Now, I don't have any problem with anyone owning a weapon for self-defense, as long as they go through the process to purchase it legally and pass a background check.

A background check isn't necessary to do it legally.

I do, however, disagree with anyone having the right to own 'weapons of mass destruction', which is precisely what an AR15 is.

So an AR-15 is a nuclear warhead you don't even know what a gun is you said they are 15 fires bullets out of it and a high velocity but that's what every gun does.

I believe there should be more restrictions on gun purchases particularly at gun shows, there should be age limit restrictions across the board, state to state, and background checks are absolutely vital.

But if I don't do those things first off how's anyone going to know, how do you enforce something you can't possibly know about?

I also think the number of guns that any one person can own should be strictly limited.

Why?

 

[CLAX1911]

Gun show purchases are subject to the same restrictions as other purchases.

This is why you really shouldn't take what these people say seriously they don't know anything.

If you buy a gun from an FFL dealer it doesn't matter if it's at a show or at a shop or on the moon or at the bottom of the sea if it's within the US jurisdiction you have to do the 4473 thing

There already are age limit restrictions.

He wants to restrict the agent which you can buy a gun from somebody who's not an FFL dealer and this is idiotic because they can just sell it anyway and there's no way of knowing.

I often propose universal criminal background checks as a condition for possession of guns and motor vehicles, and the gun control zealots balk.

I think we should have a standard background check in the first place before we drove into too much what universal means.

We don't have one when you fill out the 4473 they're getting serial numbers that's a registry it has nothing to do with the background.

Strictly limiting the number of guns any one owner can possess seems like a proposal outside the realm of rationality.

Well it's about control.

 

[jaeger19]

Because in order to get a CCW permit, you need

But look at all the states with constitutional carry. There should be an explosion of accidents but there wasn’t an isn’t.
Your assumption is that people who buy a firearm are just immediately unsafe carrying .
But we haven’t seen any huge increase in accidents.
I would submit that people are getting training either through mentors from other gun owners of formal training. And waiting until competent before carrying concealed.

No, that's not the case at all. Some retired cops might still go on to do part time work or hell,

And it’s not necessary.

That's where the liability insurance comes

But they already are. You keep assuming that the ccw holder is somehow unsafe and a problem yet the data shows they aren’t.
Basically you are saying let’s solve a problem that doesn’t exist and regulate for the sake of regulation.
Look. You want to start somewhere? Don’t start with people who aren’t a problem.
“Less than 1% of people who lied on gun background check forms were prosecuted last year. A report from the Government Accountability Office says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,710 cases for prosecution in fiscal year 2017. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorneys had tried only 12 of them.”

Bulletin: People Who 'Lie and Try' to Get Guns Are Rarely Prosecuted

Good morning, Bulletin readers. Educators tell us how gun violence has changed their jobs as a new school year gets underway. Federal records show that prosecutions for lying on a gun background check form remain exceedingly rare. President Trump’s SCOTUS pick took questions on his...

www.thetrace.org

Sorry but I have a hard time believing gun control is about stopping and preventing crime and accidents when the people that lie and try are rarely prosecuting,

I have no problem with a shall issue carry permit requiring a background check and a free safety course.

But you are requiring regulation that frankly there is zero need for. Which means that your goal is simply to throw barriers in front of citizens to discourage them from gun ownership.

Heat of passion, a shady person who manages to skate the law is able to obtain a firearm and carry it without any training, etc.

Well you just said it was the person who was willing to break the law. If they are going to break the law such that is now, they will break your regulations as well.

Can you cite those studies?

They are those same studies. Read a few in their entirety. Especially when they discuss causes.

If that's the case then do you want our military and police to only have to qualify once in their entire

Do you want the police to only have to qualify in the academy because people don't need a course a year in order to be safe, responsible, and proficient?

Ahh again, a civilian IS NOT a policeman nor a paramilitary force.

Here's the angle I'm coming from. If we require even the best of the best in both military and

Because police are entirely different than civilians.
Police officers have much greater responsibility because they have much greater authority.
Society allows police to stop and detain citizens just because they look like someone suspected of a crime. Just like when Castile was stopped by police because he supposedly looked like someone involved in a robbery.
And he was shot by police because they thought he was reaching for a weapon when they asked for his license.
Police officers are given the authority to trespass onto another’s property when they recieve calls of suspicious activity.
Like when an officer followed Mr Hill to a friends garage and then opened fire when he thought the keys in his Mr hills hand was a firearm.
Police officers are given the authority to break down doors and search houses or serve warrants
Like on Breonna Taylor.

Police have a HUGE responsibility and a huge amount of authority that civilians just don’t have.
In fact police can preemptively at times draw weapons when no immediate deadly threat is seen.
Military personnel are asked to storm entrenched enemy and attack fixed positions .
Nothing a civilian would do.

These are

Right. And those permitless carry doesn’t seem to really cause an issue. Particularly with accidents. Which is what your rehulation is supposed to reduce right?

Cut for length. Part 2 is coming.

 

[jaeger19]

Because as people age, skills and safety protocols tend to deteriorate.

Not in a year. My 84 year old father can still put 10 in a pie plate at 50yards.

Why I chose every two years is a bit arbitrary if I'm going to be honest. Police and military qualify every year, if not every six months or more because it's their job to be proficient in firearms. Regular citizens don't regularly engage in work that requires them to use their firearm, so while they don't have to be as proficient as a tier 1 operator, they should still have some sort of regular training to maintain their ability to carry nation wide under CIVSA.

Again the data says they don’t.
You’d have a great argument if concealed weapons carriers were demonstrating all sorts of accidents but frankly they just are not.

Several local sheriff's offices around my area regularly host CCW classes as does the Department of Agriculture at the DMV. I'm pretty that's the case for my entire state.

For me the closest class is 60 miles a way and is offered twice a year.
For done regions in my state you may have to travel 2to3 hours to find a class.

How many people do you know spends $50 a month on luxury items? Quite a lot, I'd imagine.

I know more that have a hard time finding 50 dollars extra to pay for meds not covered by insurance.
And you want 50dollars for insurance they don’t need. Can’t you show there is a great need for liability insurance.
What if the best they can get cost 200 a month.? 400?

It's a flat rate and if you cancel it, you void your national carry permit.

And if your insurance simply drops you? Through no fault of your own. Or raises rates ?
Your rights are contingent on insurance companies.

Again, do you have the sources for those studies?

Your studies.

 

[RF667799]

This is why you really shouldn't take what these people say seriously they don't know anything.

If you buy a gun from an FFL dealer it doesn't matter if it's at a show or at a shop or on the moon or at the bottom of the sea if it's within the US jurisdiction you have to do the 4473 thing

He wants to restrict the agent which you can buy a gun from somebody who's not an FFL dealer and this is idiotic because they can just sell it anyway and there's no way of knowing.

I think we should have a standard background check in the first place before we drove into too much what universal means.

I would be very willing to discuss with gun controllers what should constitute a "prohibited person" and what background checks should look like. For instance, I think the idea that someone who has ever smoked pot or took some other illegal drug should be prohibited from owning guns or motor vehicles is silly. But violent, felonious crime should get one on the prohibited list for sure. A tax evader isn't a danger to me because of his crime. Someone guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, can very well be assumed to be a dangerous individual.

We don't have one when you fill out the 4473 they're getting serial numbers that's a registry it has nothing to do with the background.

Well it's about control.

 

[CLAX1911]

I would be very willing to discuss with gun controllers what should constitute a "prohibited person" and what background checks should look like. For instance, I think the idea that someone who has ever smoked pot or took some other illegal drug should be prohibited from owning guns or motor vehicles is silly. But violent, felonious crime should get one on the prohibited list for sure. A tax evader isn't a danger to me because of his crime. Someone guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, can very well be assumed to be a dangerous individual.

I think starting out with an actual background check would be a good place that thing they do where you fill out the 4473 that's not a background check. They look in an ICS database which is a ruse and they record serial numbers which is an illegal registry.

 

[RF667799]

I think starting out with an actual background check would be a good place that thing they do where you fill out the 4473 that's not a background check. They look in an ICS database which is a ruse and they record serial numbers which is an illegal registry.

Serial numbers are also recorded when a gun leaves the factory.

The database being incomplete in some areas and overloaded with irrelevant data in others, certainly needs refined.

In a way, background checks are a sop to anti-gunners. Someone bent on mayhem with a gun will get one anyway. I don't mind background checks so much though, because they are at least directed towards the criminal element. Peaceful people should experience nothing but the slightest inconvenience from properly instituted background checks.

 

[CLAX1911]

Serial numbers are also recorded when a gun leaves the factory.

But they're not attached to a buyer which is essentially all the registration is when you fill out the 4473 they put the serial number on there and attach that to your name

The database being incomplete in some areas and overloaded with irrelevant data in others, certainly needs refined.

The database is woefully incomplete to the point where it's window dressing

In a way, background checks are a sop to anti-gunners. Someone bent on mayhem with a gun will get one anyway. I don't mind background checks so much though, because they are at least directed towards the criminal element. Peaceful people should experience nothing but the slightest inconvenience from properly instituted background checks.

I wouldn't mind the background check if it was an actual background it's just a ruse to have a registry

 

[RF667799]

But they're not attached to a buyer which is essentially all the registration is when you fill out the 4473 they put the serial number on there and attach that to your name

The database is woefully incomplete to the point where it's window dressing

I wouldn't mind the background check if it was an actual background it's just a ruse to have a registry

I can't say you are incorrect.

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah. I’ve never said either statement.
But anti gunners gotta lie …

So you admit that BOTH statements are wrong ?

 

[jaeger19]

So you admit that BOTH statements are wrong ?

Rich I know you are almost always wrong.

 

[Bum]

But...but...the "thing that goes up".

 

[JMB1911A1]

But...but...the "thing that goes up".

Carolyn McCarthy is definitely in the running but I have to go with Patricia Eddington (Dumbass - NY) and her quote about tracer rounds.

"Come on. This is crazy, you can't use this for hunting… some of these bullets have an incendiary device on the tip of it… which is a heat seeking device. So you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do, you could cook it at the same time"

 

[Rich2018]

Rich I know you are almost always wrong.

Those aren't my statements
So once again, do you admit that they are BOTH wrong ?

"Cars are designed to kill"

and

"People under 21, can't buy alcoholic drinks, in a public bar, in the USA"

 

[RF667799]

Those aren't my statements
So once again, do you admit that they are BOTH wrong ?

"Cars are designed to kill"

and

"People under 21, can't buy alcoholic drinks, in a public bar, in the USA"

If you derive "designed to kill" from "can be used to kill"; then cars are "designed to kill".

"Can" has two meanings. When someone equivocates between them, they might make a stupid claim like "shotguns and cell phones aren't portable".

 

[Maccabee]

But look at all the states with constitutional carry. There should be an explosion of accidents but there wasn’t an isn’t.

A 22% increase in firearm related homicides and assaults in Florida just a couple of years since we've allowed permitless carry IS a significant amount.

Your assumption is that people who buy a firearm are just immediately unsafe carrying .

If they're not experienced in handling firearms then absolutely they're unsafe. A permit ensures that you at least know the four rules of firearm safety and can put rounds on target.

But we haven’t seen any huge increase in accidents.
I would submit that people are getting training either through mentors from other gun owners of formal training. And waiting until competent before carrying concealed.


And it’s not necessary.

But they already are. You keep assuming that the ccw holder is somehow unsafe and a problem yet the data shows they aren’t.

Because they have the permit to show that they went through the training to obtain it

Basically you are saying let’s solve a problem that doesn’t exist and regulate for the sake of regulation.
Look. You want to start somewhere? Don’t start with people who aren’t a problem.
“Less than 1% of people who lied on gun background check forms were prosecuted last year. A report from the Government Accountability Office says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred about 12,710 cases for prosecution in fiscal year 2017. As of June 2018, U.S. Attorneys had tried only 12 of them.”

Bulletin: People Who 'Lie and Try' to Get Guns Are Rarely Prosecuted

Good morning, Bulletin readers. Educators tell us how gun violence has changed their jobs as a new school year gets underway. Federal records show that prosecutions for lying on a gun background check form remain exceedingly rare. President Trump’s SCOTUS pick took questions on his...

www.thetrace.org

I'm completely fine with prosecuting people who lie on 4473 forms.

Sorry but I have a hard time believing gun control is about stopping and preventing crime and accidents when the people that lie and try are rarely prosecuting,

I have no problem with a shall issue carry permit requiring a background check and a free safety course.

But you are requiring regulation that frankly there is zero need for. Which means that your goal is simply to throw barriers in front of citizens to discourage them from gun ownership.

I'm not sure if I addressed this comment before, but I'll address it here. Just because you disagree with my proposals doesn't mean that I want to discourage law abiding, responsible, and sound minded people from owning and carrying firearms. Far from it. Just look at my post history or hell, look at my avatar. I own, carry, and shoot several firearms, including the "scary" AR-15. I don't agree with any proposal that bans commonly owned firearms, especially on arbitrary definitions. So drop the barely legal ad hominems and focus on the topic at hand. Any more of this will be cut out in my response.

Well you just said it was the person who was willing to break the law. If they are going to break the law such that is now, they will break your regulations as well.

... Cut for length.

Which is why I'm not demanding the level of training police and military go through. Just a refresher course every so often in my proposed CIVSA permit. Could be yearly, every two years, 5 years, or whenever you need to renew your permit.

Right. And those permitless carry doesn’t seem to really cause an issue. Particularly with accidents. Which is what your rehulation is supposed to reduce right?

You're conjoining two different arguments. My arguments are as follows:

1. Permitless carry is a bad idea because it leads to an increase in firearm related homicides and assaults. People should be trained on safety, justified use of force, and relevant firearm laws in order to be allowed to carry.

2. To respect states rights and honestly, help sell the idea of national reciprocity, we should have a CIVSA permit in the same way LEOSA is implemented. States can run their own standards for their state CCW permit, however CIVSA permit holders must go through regular training and have liability insurance in order to maintain their CIVSA permit. CIVSA permit holders can also have a state CCW if they so choose.

 

[Maccabee]

Not in a year. My 84 year old father can still put 10 in a pie plate at 50yards.

And there are seasoned cops/service members who only shoot once a year that wound up having a ND. Your point?

Again the data says they don’t.
You’d have a great argument if concealed weapons carriers were demonstrating all sorts of accidents but frankly they just are not.

It's not just accidents. It's also the firearm related homicides and assaults.

For me the closest class is 60 miles a way and is offered twice a year.
For done regions in my state you may have to travel 2to3 hours to find a class.

CIVSA would provide an incentive to create more classes to more people. Hell, have it be ran/held by the DMV.

I know more that have a hard time finding 50 dollars extra to pay for meds not covered by insurance.

Sounds like an issue universal healthcare could solve.

And you want 50dollars for insurance they don’t need.

Who says they don't need it?

Can’t you show there is a great need for liability insurance.
What if the best they can get cost 200 a month.? 400?

And if your insurance simply drops you? Through no fault of your own. Or raises rates ?
Your rights are contingent on insurance companies.

This is specifically for CIVSA permits. Anything else is subject to existing state laws.

Your studies.

Which ones?

 

[RF667799]

And there are seasoned cops/service members who only shoot once a year that wound up having a ND. Your point?


It's not just accidents. It's also the firearm related homicides and assaults.

How is training going to affect homicides and assaults?

CIVSA would provide an incentive to create more classes to more people. Hell, have it be ran/held by the DMV.


Sounds like an issue universal healthcare could solve.


Who says they don't need it?


This is specifically for CIVSA permits. Anything else is subject to existing state laws.

Which ones?

 

[Maccabee]

How is training going to affect homicides and assaults?

With training, usually comes with a segment about when and where it's appropriate to use a firearm. If I'm going to take a gander as to why states Florida are experiencing a 22% increase in firearm related homicides and assaults since allowing permitless carry, it would be that people are buying and carrying firearms with no form of training and in turn, getting themselves in legally dubious situations where they thought they were justified in using their firearm, but in actuality they introduced a firearm in a situation that never called for it and now someone is hurt or killed.

 

[JMB1911A1]

With training, usually comes with a segment about when and where it's appropriate to use a firearm. If I'm going to take a gander as to why states Florida are experiencing a 22% increase in firearm related homicides and assaults since allowing permitless carry, it would be that people are buying and carrying firearms with no form of training and in turn, getting themselves in legally dubious situations where they thought they were justified in using their firearm, but in actuality they introduced a firearm in a situation that never called for it and now someone is hurt or killed.

You keep spouting this 22% number but fail to link to a source. Color me skeptical.

 

[CLAX1911]

And there are seasoned cops/service members who only shoot once a year that wound up having a ND. Your point?


It's not just accidents. It's also the firearm related homicides and assaults.

That's the less common among lawful gun owners than among police.

CIVSA would provide an incentive to create more classes to more people. Hell, have it be ran/held by the DMV.

More classes for what?

Sounds like an issue universal healthcare could solve.

The answer is never more government interference.

Who says they don't need it?

Reality.

This is specifically for CIVSA permits. Anything else is subject to existing state laws.

second amendment already permits it

Which ones?

 

[Bum]

If you derive "designed to kill" from "can be used to kill"; then cars are "designed to kill".

"Can" has two meanings. When someone equivocates between them, they might make a stupid claim like "shotguns and cell phones aren't portable".

He is advocating for age based second classed citizenship.

 

[Maccabee]

You keep spouting this 22% number but fail to link to a source. Color me skeptical.

Here you go.

A polarizing debate: Florida’s controversial permitless carry law

Since HB 543 took effect on July 1, there has been considerable uncertainty surrounding the implications of the new permitless gun carry law in Florida. Although the new law doesn’t change who can purchase a firearm, what firearms can be carried or the three-day waiting period, Floridians have...

myfau.fau.edu

 

[JMB1911A1]

Here you go.

A polarizing debate: Florida’s controversial permitless carry law

Since HB 543 took effect on July 1, there has been considerable uncertainty surrounding the implications of the new permitless gun carry law in Florida. Although the new law doesn’t change who can purchase a firearm, what firearms can be carried or the three-day waiting period, Floridians have...

myfau.fau.edu

From your link:

Scientific evidence suggests that removing concealed carry permitting systems is associated with higher rates of gun homicide and violent crime. A 2022 study by GVPedia analyzed CDC data from states with permitless carry laws.

It concluded that states that passed a permitless carry law suffered from a 22% increase in gun homicide for the three years after the law’s passage.

Couple of things that you seem to have missed.
- The 2022 “study” referred to states, NOT Florida. You said that Florida had a 22% increase.
- The study was from 2022. Florida did not have permitless carry till 01 July 2023. So, how did this study evaluate Florida?
-GVPedia is an anti-gun organization. Their board consists of multiple gun control advocates. It is not an unbiased source.

Board & Staff - GVPedia

GVPedia arms policymakers, advocates and the public with facts and data so that gun violence prevention policy is based on research and reason.

www.gvpedia.org

Here is some other data for you to consider.

Concealed Carry Crime Stats 2024: The Impact of Open Carry on Crime in the U.S. - Legal Reader

Sixteen states have adopted permitless carry laws since 2019. This trend has sparked interest in how allowing concealed carry impacts crime rates.

www.legalreader.com

• Sixteen of the 29 states with permitless carry passed their laws after 2021, with seven of those passing them after 2015. (Source 1)
• Ten of the sixteen states that adopted permitless carry before 2022 saw a decline in violent crime rates; only Alaska saw a notable increase. (Source 4)
• States like Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming, with permitless carry for over ten years, generally saw reduced long-term violent crime rates. (Source 4)
• In 2022, states with restrictive concealed carry laws had an average homicide rate of 5.4 per 100,000, compared to 5.8 per 100,000 in states with permitless carry. (Source 3)
• States with concealed carry laws have not seen an increase in crime rates; many have seen declines in violent crime and homicide rates. (Source 3)