- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Ive already discusses D.C. Chicago I guess just doesn't have their **** together like NYC does. too bad for them.
I counter that is a fallacy of logic. Crying babies do not cause spoiled milk. You have to get a bigger picture than that. As mentioned above... Chicago and DC also have very strict laws and their crime rates are very high.
Detroit & Buffalo have been decimated by the shipping of manufacturing jobs overseas, with NOTHING to replace those jobs.
D.C. has almost ZERO income tax-base. Newark? hell they don't even have a damn Barnes & Nobles.
Ive already discusses D.C. Chicago I guess just doesn't have their **** together like NYC does. too bad for them.
I understood that the background checks took time, and had to be done by a law enforcement agency to check for felony convictions, etc. Gun dealers wouldn't have access to those files. If I'm wrong, then I'm fine without the waiting period. I just want a FULL background check, including those with mental illness..
Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool. They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.
I understood that the background checks took time, and had to be done by a law enforcement agency to check for felony convictions, etc. Gun dealers wouldn't have access to those files. If I'm wrong, then I'm fine without the waiting period. I just want a FULL background check, including those with mental illness.
My feeling is that if a FULL background check is done at purchase, even if it takes a few days, then that gun belongs to that person and he/she should automatically be allowed to carry either open or concealed.
Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool. They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.
You know when storage bins are auctioned off, any firearms found there must be taken to a licensed gun dealer (the auctioneer will do it himself if he sees the weapon) to be registered to the person who bought the bin... same background checks apply. I think that's good. The idea is to track guns, like cars, from owner to owner via serial number. You have to notify the DMV if your automobile is sold or stolen, and when you purchase a car, even a used one. I think guns should be handled the same way.
Yes. That's why I advocate the 2nd Amendment as written. Some basic federal militia rules and the states could add some value. The amount to laws could be reduced by more than 90%.the problem is that our gun laws are not uniform throughout the whole country. it is their ununiformity that allows folks to buy lots of guns in a pretty safe area, and sell them to criminals in a more dangerous area that has stronger gun laws.
strong gun laws that strictly regulate gun sales, are kinda useless when one can simply buy guns across state-lines, and easily bring them over and sell them. we need gun law uniformity.
...So who would have access to your mental health records? The police? great idea.
I'm Not going to forgive you. And I rather you not ask for it. From my POV you're doing extremely well, esp. compared to me.TD, this is a complicated issue. .... My views change. This issue is very fluid..and so are my views on it. Forgive me for not being hard-headed, unable to adjust my views based on new info, sworn to loyalty to my party's platform, unwilling to see things from another perspective.
I make no apologies.
folks who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.
OK, more detail. I arrived home about 3:00 am, caught him on our property. He ran a short distance and jumped in his car an took off lights off. Then I saw what he had done as I was arriving. I followed him, lights off at a sufficient distance that he thought he lost me. He didn't. I pulled up behind him at his apartment complex. Shooting him there wouldn't have worked for me. Not following him wouldn't have solved the problem we were having.why in the world would you go to jail in such a situation. if a guy is on your property committing a crime, especially if armed, you have every right to pull on him.
waiting periods have no proper use--It has been proven time and time again those only get honest people killed and the "heat of the passion" crap has been dismissed dozens of times
Any officer that would comply with an illegal search doesn't deserve to walk out of that situation. More than that, the person that issues such a command should be legally responsible for any death or injury including murder charges, negligent homicide, burglary, and anything else that happens.Oh really? Then I suppose since I have nothing to hide I should be okay with the state violating my rights? Inconveniencing me whenever they want while acting outside the proper role of government? Stopping cars willy nilly to search them like Joe Arpaio wants? Oh you folks are having dinner/sex/whatever, too bad we're coming in to look through your ****. Not a problem right? Because the only people who would have a problem with state assrape are criminals with something to hide ya know :roll:
What a bull**** argument posed by those who hate how unsafe they are in freedom, and by authoritarians/cops demanding obedience. I have plenty to fear from people who would buy into such a bull**** argument as that, and use it to defend ridding or violating ones rights. We live, or at least used to, in a country with due process and innocence until proven guilty.
I've been mostly reading in this discussion rather than posting. As I look at the poll I notice that very few people voted for no guns at all. I have to ask why?
1. We can't get there from here, i.e. how do you retrieve them all.I've been mostly reading in this discussion rather than posting. As I look at the poll I notice that very few people voted for no guns at all. I have to ask why?
1. We can't get there from here, i.e. how do you retrieve them all.
2. They have many sporting uses that are nontrivial.
3. They work for personal protection if you are trained etc.
4. They are allowed by our culture and basic law, the 2nd Amendment essentially put a limit on their use, be a member of a Militia, but that's it.
5. You'll make a huge number of non criminals into criminals.
6. You'll put a huge number of people out of work.
If I think about a bit more I could come up with more reasons, but I bet I'll get some help.
I would suggest fear - but it could be they take this poll as meaning handguns as opposed to all guns.I understand why there should be guns. What I don't understand is why someone would vote to have no guns at all.
folks who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.
Please read George Orwell.............
I
Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool. They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.
You know when storage bins are auctioned off, any firearms found there must be taken to a licensed gun dealer (the auctioneer will do it himself if he sees the weapon) to be registered to the person who bought the bin... same background checks apply. I think that's good. The idea is to track guns, like cars, from owner to owner via serial number. You have to notify the DMV if your automobile is sold or stolen, and when you purchase a car, even a used one. I think guns should be handled the same way.
I think shotguns, some rifles, and a few pistols only need a quick check. Semi-automatics (incl revolvers) need a background check. Basically, if you want to take more than two or three shots at once you should be checked out.
I would suggest fear - but it could be they take this poll as meaning handguns as opposed to all guns.
The problem is that firearms are not automobiles. They are a right and do not fall under the same category as a vehicle. Not to mention...private sale and registration with dealers will never affect the illegal dealers, and registered firearms will be stolen anyway.
Maybe. But the reason for the right is largely obsolete. While I have no problem with hunters have weapons, or people in dangerous situations ahving them, I am bothered by the mythical reverence we give guns in this country.
such a strategy appears to only work, if we have armed border police, searching all migrants, along our state borders.
honestly, if I was Governor I would instruct the State Police to search EVERY car that comes to NYC from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas.
folks who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.
NYC has its **** together, and has for quite a while now.
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?