Its Just a FORM nonsense

[flogger]

How many did Russia have? How many suicides did South Korea have?

And how many beans make five :roll:

 

[flogger]

Incredibly happy....

That guns are all that matter to you .... ?

You need help

 

[Thoth]

And how many beans make five :roll:

I'm sure you mean something with this idiotic statement. :roll:

You mean you cannot answer the question again.

 

[Bum]

The NRA has brainwashed and manipulated you in thinking only owning a gun makes you free.

interesting notion...are you now a psychic with insight to my thoughts? Or do you simply presume that if I am not with you, I am against you?

Let me tell you, that is not my definition of freedom. The NRA has our country hostage. I fear to live in a society where my daughter has to go to a school where she may be killed with a weapon of war.

Yes, that's all very fascinating, and you are entitled to your personal perceptions....but, you are not addressing the statements you posted.

Some of you are disgusting. When you think it should be legal for ordinary citizens to be able to purchase machine guns, aks, grenade launchers, Heckler & Koch's etc.

Actually, I don't...and neither does the United States as evidenced by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which prohibits and regulates the sale and possession of machines guns, grenades, grenade launchers, etc. Do some people think it should be legal? I'm sure there are those that think so, but, its not uncommon in our democracy to disagree with laws that have been passed. However, we are still straying from the topic...the statements you made regarding the Second amendment.

Innocent children should be able to go to school without the fear of a deranged nut-gun shooting up kids like a damn war zone in Afghanistan.

Yes, I think we can agree to the above.

So, here we are then, and you have yet to offer any supporting links or legal reference's to your following statement:

1. "From a originalist perspective the constitution does not guarantee an individual right to a gun."

2. "The NRA radicalized and basically re interrupted the Consitution "

I am left then to conclude, that you have nothing to support your above statements, and that your words are a matter of personal opinions and beliefs.
Certainly nothing wrong with that...many people have personal opinions and beliefs that are in conflict with settled case law.

 

[BretJ]

Well our gun control keeps our murder rate at a fifth of yours so I guess we must have got something right :wink:

If you say so....:roll:

 

[flogger]

If you say so....:roll:

The numbers say so, but I know you guys have some difficulties with those :wink:

 

[TurtleDude]

So, here we are then, and you have yet to offer any supporting links or legal reference's to your following statement:

1. "From a originalist perspective the constitution does not guarantee an individual right to a gun."

2. "The NRA radicalized and basically re interrupted the Consitution "

I am left then to conclude, that you have nothing to support your above statements, and that your words are a matter of personal opinions and beliefs.
Certainly nothing wrong with that...many people have personal opinions and beliefs that are in conflict with settled case law.

what they miss is that there is far far more evidence that the originalist position on the second is an individual right while the originalist position on the commerce clause cannot find any support for federal gun control powers.

 

[BretJ]

That guns are all that matter to you .... ?

You need help

Of course I do...tell you what, I will get help with this issue when you get some help with that rape issue...

 

[BretJ]

The numbers say so, but I know you guys have some difficulties with those :wink:

I am sure you do as well by the time the pubs close.

 

[flogger]

Of course I do...tell you what, I will get help with this issue when you get some help with that rape issue...

What rape issue please quote me ..... ?

 

[Rucker61]

Well our gun control keeps our murder rate at a fifth of yours so I guess we must have got something right :wink:

And your demographics, and your geography...

 

[vegas giants]

Do you understand why gun control laws go unenforced? Why simple age restrictions and straw purchases and failed background checks are never reviewed?

There are too many people. Sheer volume. And then there is the fact that local law enforcement doesn't have the ability or legal capacity. I am not sure which. But let me put it to you this way. And I will use a personal experience compared to a famous one.

The newtown shooter went to purchase a firearm. He was DENIED. The system worked. And he was denied because he was mentally adjudicated and declared a risk. He was NOT allowed to purchase through due process. Excellent example of how and why someone should be banned that WAS ALSO constitutional. But what happened after? Was anyone notified? Did the local sheriff get a call? Was there an officer handling that? Did anyone in the area even have a section that COULD be notified? And before you suggest that that is possible...let me share MY experience of being denied.

The second firearm purchase I went to make in my life...but the first I went to make alone without family there...was for a little .380 pistol. I had cash in hand and even purchased the ammo and accessories from the establishment for other firearms. I was a "regular" because they sold the ammo and so on that I liked and had good advice. Well I went to fill out the forms. Did every box. Did everything as normal. Handed it in. But was denied. When I was informed I was denied...I was embarrassed and surprised. But it was hardly an unusual error. I had put my new address on the form.

My license? Still my old address. My home where I had lived for 20 something years. Just a mix up. An error on my part that I hadn't considered and didn't even cross my mind. Not an error I will make again. Had nothing to do with my legal ability to purchase. Not a danger. Not a criminal record. Just an error. Do you realize how many of these and how long these would take to actually investigate? I would minimum have to get a phone call right? Maybe just a record check? But all of that requires man hours. Someone you pay around $28,000 to $34,000 a year to actually review if you are hiring poorly educated non LEO parties to investigate.

I know. It seems melodramatic. Seems like a worthwhile expenditure right? But then you factor in what happens when someone is caught WITH an illegal firearm. Or they kill someone. There are plea deals or more important chargers to deal with. Those charges take a back seat. And how did these scumbags get their guns? Well. Stolen. About 30% of the time. Or someone bought the gun illegally FOR them. Maybe a girlfriend or a family member. Can you prove that in a court of law? Good luck. "They stole it." Hell. Ever tried getting someone to admit fault in an insurance related incident JUST for a low dollar amount under $1000? I have. Good ****ing luck. Now make some real consequences BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

Do you dig what I am burying? This isn't a simple issue. Saying "it is just a form" and then pretending that a form is easy to enforce? Not realistic. It is a bag of cats. A form and "emergency legislation" is a pipe dream that won't fix the problem. 90% of the problem is going to be solved by dealing with violent crime issues and drug crime. Our efforts are best spent on proven "wholistic" methods of controlling crime.

So lets sum up. You suffered a minor inconvenience due to an address change that was easily remedied and you were still able to buy a gun. Oh the horror.

Its a form

 

[flogger]

And your demographics, and your geography...

Primarily of course its our lack of guns which make killing far too easy as the US example dramatically illustrates

 

[Rucker61]

Primarily of course its our lack of guns which make killing far too easy as the US example dramatically illustrates

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

 

[vegas giants]

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

Have you looked at the gun laws in those countries. They are MUCH more strict than they are here. Take sweden

Gun Laws in Sweden

 

[Rucker61]

So lets sum up. You suffered a minor inconvenience due to an address change that was easily remedied and you were still able to buy a gun. Oh the horror.

Its a form

So no fees, no background check, I can print one and have the buyer fill it out?

It's a form in a process that is easily bypassed and can't be enforced.

 

[vegas giants]

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

Here is the process for the Swiss. FORMS!!!!!!

In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 8 WG). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit. Foreigners with the following citizenship are explicitly excluded from the right to possess weapons: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania.[note 2] The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:
valid official identification or passport copy
residence address
criminal record copy not older than 3 months

For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (Art. 10 WG), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (Art. 11 WG):
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component
Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer;
Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component
and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.

This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holders are registered (Art. 9 WG).

 

[vegas giants]

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

Norway demands that you have a NEED for a gun!!!! The horror!!!!

Gun ownership is restricted in Norway, unless one has officially documented a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defense, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency.

There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even more narrow qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.

Ownership is regulated in paragraph 7,[1] and responsibility for issuing a gun ownership license is given to the police authority in the applicant's district.

Rifle and shotgun ownership permission can be given to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years or older. The applicant for the permission must document a need for the weapon. Two exceptions exist to this age qualification. Persons under the age of 18, but over 16 may apply for rifle or shotgun ownership licence with the consent of parents or guardian. For handguns, the lowest ownership age is 21 with no exceptions allowed. For inherited weapons, it is up to the local police chief to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case.

An applicant must have a clean police record in order to obtain an ownership license

 

[TurtleDude]

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

again, haven't you figured out that death rates and public safety is really irrelevant as to the real motivations of those who want to ban American citizens from being able to own guns

 

[flogger]

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

No they don't. Their firearms related deaths and homicides are all many orders of magnitude higher than the Uk



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

How much lower would their already low homicide rates be were it not for their guns I wonder ?

I suspect their filling out of forms has something to do with why they are still far lower than yours

 

[vegas giants]

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

Finland licensing and registration!!! What madness!!!!

The ownership and use of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 1998. A license is always needed for possession of a firearm and all firearms are registered. Firearms may only be carried while they are being used for a specific purpose (e.g. hunting, shooting at the range). When transporting a firearm to or from such activity, the firearm must be unloaded and stored in a case or pouch. The owner of a firearm is responsible for making sure that firearms and ammunition do not end up in unauthorized hands. The exact requirements regarding storage of firearms depends on their type and quantity.[11]

Air guns up to 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) in caliber are not regulated regardless of their muzzle energy. Larger bore air weapons need a permit, unless the person already holds a firearms licence. Bows and crossbows are not regulated items in Finland, while pepper spray is. Silencers are considered firearm components, but can be used with without requiring any separate licensing. Magazine capacity is not restricted nor is there regulation regarding other firearm accessories.[12]

An unlicensed person may use firearms only under direct supervision.[13] Simple unlawful possession of a firearm is punishable by fine or up to two years in prison, although more severe punishments may apply e.g. in the case of fully automatic weapons or when used to commit other crime. However, an unlicensed firearm may always be turned in without repercussions, provided this happens at the initiative of the person in possession of the firearm.[14]

Certain types of ammunition, such as expanding pistol rounds or incendiary rounds, require special authorization (in addition to a firearms licence) to purchase. The amount of ammunition a person may possess is limited by legislation related to the safe storage of explosive materials rather than the Firearms Act. In the most common case this limit is 20 000 rounds of ammunition including loose primers and 2 kg of gunpowder.[15]

 

[TurtleDude]

No they don't. Their firearms related deaths and homicides are all many orders of magnitude higher than the Uk

View attachment 67221672

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

How much lower would their already low homicide rates be were it not for their guns I wonder ?

so what. instead of your constant reams of complete BS, tell us why those of us who enjoy the recreational use of firearms should agree to the crap you want to impose on our country

 

[vegas giants]

And the Swiss example offers a counterpoint. Finland, Norway and Sweden also have some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world with similar homicide rates as the UK. Why does it take such a lack of guns to make the UK as safe as Sweden, or more dangerous than Norway with their gun ownership rates?

Maybe there were some other countries you meant to show. LOL

 

[TurtleDude]

Has anyone noticed that the guy who constantly repeats "its just a form" over and over completely supports stuff far more onerous than that

You see, everyone who cannot pass a background check is already subject to felony penalties if they possess a gun. So merely doing the form nonsense won't prevent anyone who is not banned from getting a gun. and those who are already banned will continue to ignore the laws. So this crap won't do anything. But if you read the stuff the "its just a form" advocate claims, he is actually demanding far more people be prevented from getting a gun. in other words,its not about preventing those who commit felonies by having guns, its about cutting down on the number of people who can currently own a gun

 

[flogger]

so what. instead of your constant reams of complete BS, tell us why those of us who enjoy the recreational use of firearms should agree to the crap you want to impose on our country

Because it would save lives

Why not just just fill out the form ?