- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 104,562
- Reaction score
- 26,278
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.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.
Everybody would be punished by the removal of RightsAren't those two things very similar, since gun owners would feel they were being punished?
Let me guess it's the ku Klux Klan interpretation did you really learn your history.I have an entirely different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
So it's definitely the ku Klux Klan interpretation.I have a more restrictive interpretation that prioritizes the role of a "well-regulated militia".
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.I see this through the eyes of our Founding Fathers, who passed the 2nd Amendment in 1791.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Seems like that puts a kibosh on everything you said.“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
A background check isn't necessary to do it legally.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.
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 do, however, disagree with anyone having the right to own 'weapons of mass destruction', which is precisely what an AR15 is.
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 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.
Why?I also think the number of guns that any one person can own should be strictly limited.
This is why you really shouldn't take what these people say seriously they don't know anything.Gun show purchases are subject to the same restrictions as other purchases.
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.There already are age limit restrictions.
I think we should have a standard background check in the first place before we drove into too much what universal means.I often propose universal criminal background checks as a condition for possession of guns and motor vehicles, and the gun control zealots balk.
Well it's about control.Strictly limiting the number of guns any one owner can possess seems like a proposal outside the realm of rationality.
But look at all the states with constitutional carry. There should be an explosion of accidents but there wasn’t an isn’t.Because in order to get a CCW permit, you need
And it’s not necessary.No, that's not the case at all. Some retired cops might still go on to do part time work or hell,
But they already are. You keep assuming that the ccw holder is somehow unsafe and a problem yet the data shows they aren’t.That's where the liability insurance comes
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.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.
They are those same studies. Read a few in their entirety. Especially when they discuss causes.Can you cite those studies?
If that's the case then do you want our military and police to only have to qualify once in their entire
Ahh again, a civilian IS NOT a policeman nor a paramilitary force.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?
Because police are entirely different than civilians.Here's the angle I'm coming from. If we require even the best of the best in both military and
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?These are
Cut for length. Part 2 is coming.
Not in a year. My 84 year old father can still put 10 in a pie plate at 50yards.Because as people age, skills and safety protocols tend to deteriorate.
Again the data says they don’t.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.
For me the closest class is 60 miles a way and is offered twice a year.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.
I know more that have a hard time finding 50 dollars extra to pay for meds not covered by insurance.How many people do you know spends $50 a month on luxury items? Quite a lot, I'd imagine.
And if your insurance simply drops you? Through no fault of your own. Or raises rates ?It's a flat rate and if you cancel it, you void your national carry permit.
Your studies.Again, do you have the sources for those studies?
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.
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.
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.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.
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 nameSerial numbers are also recorded when a gun leaves the factory.
The database is woefully incomplete to the point where it's window dressingThe database being incomplete in some areas and overloaded with irrelevant data in others, certainly needs refined.
I wouldn't mind the background check if it was an actual background it's just a ruse to have a registryIn 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.
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
Yeah. I’ve never said either statement.
But anti gunners gotta lie …
Rich I know you are almost always wrong.So you admit that BOTH statements are wrong ?
Carolyn McCarthy is definitely in the running but I have to go with Patricia Eddington (Dumbass - NY) and her quote about tracer rounds.But...but...the "thing that goes up".
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"
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 .
Because they have the permit to show that they went through the training to obtain itBut 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.
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.
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.
You're conjoining two different arguments. My arguments are as follows: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?
And there are seasoned cops/service members who only shoot once a year that wound up having a ND. Your point?Not in a year. My 84 year old father can still put 10 in a pie plate at 50yards.
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.
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.
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?
And if your insurance simply drops you? Through no fault of your own. Or raises rates ?
Your rights are contingent on insurance companies.
Which ones?Your studies.
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.
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?
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.How is training going to affect homicides and assaults?
You keep spouting this 22% number but fail to link to a source. Color me skeptical.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.
That's the less common among lawful gun owners than among police.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.
More classes for what?CIVSA would provide an incentive to create more classes to more people. Hell, have it be ran/held by the DMV.
The answer is never more government interference.Sounds like an issue universal healthcare could solve.
Reality.Who says they don't need it?
second amendment already permits itThis is specifically for CIVSA permits. Anything else is subject to existing state laws.
Which ones?
He is advocating for age based second classed citizenship.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".
Here you go.You keep spouting this 22% number but fail to link to a source. Color me skeptical.
From your link: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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?