Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/29/2003 5:32:33 PM EDT
this jackhole wants background searches required on off the shoulder buys at gunshows. I've tried explaining the impracticality and immorality of invasions into private transactions - I need more points to make. Thanks in advance.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 5:36:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 5:40:19 PM EDT by SouthernShark]
When I'm asked about "reasonable restrictions" I simply responded by asking questions. I ask do you want blood in the streets? Do you want a civil war in America? Do you want this country to be ripped apart and for the liberal gun grabbers to burned on the cross? Do you want ravens to feast on the flesh of the dead, piled high around our cities? Do you want disease and starvation to run rife through our cities as supply trucks are sabotauged? Do you want the cblood of unborn babies to be poured into coffers and served as an afterdinner drink? No? Then shut the fuck up. If you want my gun, then come and get it. There will be no more compromises. You are either with us or against us.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 5:58:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Frankenstein: this jackhole wants background searches required on off the shoulder buys at gunshows.
View Quote
I'd tell him I think he should have to pass an IQ test before being able to speak in public, but that I have to respect his 1st Amendment rights just as he should respect my 2nd Amendment rights.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 6:08:11 PM EDT
Shark - while I DO see your point and agree, this is ostensibly a civil discussion..... much as I'd like to [nuts], I guess I can't. Any more civil ideas?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 6:47:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 7:16:41 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
What is his "reasoning" for background checks at gunshows? Public safety??? Does he mistakenly think most criminals get their guns from gunshows??? Show him these stats: -----------------------------------------------[url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf][b] Dept. of Justice; Firearm Use by Offender - Table 8[/b][/url] [b][u]1991: Source of guns used in crimes by state prison inmates - [/b][/u] * 40.8% from street source (drug dealer, theft, blackmarket). * 33.8% from family or friend. * 18.9% from retail store or pawnshop. [red]* 0.6% from gunshows.[/red] [b][u]1997: Source of guns used in crimes by state prison inmates - [/u][/b] * 39.2% from street source (drug dealer, theft, blackmarket). * 39.6% from family or friend. * 12.1% from retail store or pawnshop. [red]* 0.7% from gunshows.[/red] [b]* * * Guns used in crimes are very rarely ever obtained by the criminal through gunshows.[/b] ----------------------------------------------- But this only skirts the main issue - that REQUIRING private sales of firearms be "regulated" is well beyond the authority delegated to the Gov't by the Constitution. Ask the jackhole what provision of the Constitution grants Gov't the authority to conduct [u]background checks[/u] on private sales of ANYTHING. If he comes back with "well they do it for cars", tell him [b]NO ONE puts his name through an FBI/NICS check to see if he's an ex-con, escaped felon, convicted junkie, raging alcoholic or mentally insane when he buys a car. [/b][stick] Then ask him why, even WITH all this wonderful gov't licensing, registration, driver's tests, DUI checkpoints and gov't oversight, that there's STILL almost 20,000 deaths from drunk driver-related accidents each year but only about 800 deaths from firearm-related accidents each year. Then have him read the 2nd Amendment ONE MORE TIME and explain it to you. Especially the part about "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms [red]shall not be infringed[/red]."
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 7:06:48 PM EDT
Look, I'm new here (USA), but I read "...shall not be infringed." and I kind of get it. I DONT GET people who dont get it. I'm just the new guy but I'm learning.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 7:16:06 PM EDT
That won't affect: - private sales NOT at a gunshow - private sales out of the back of a van - theft of guns
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 7:52:06 PM EDT
There are NO valid arguments against reasonable restrictions. [red]"[The 2nd Amendment is] subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."[/red]- Ashcroft Justice Department letters to the Supreme Court, May 2002
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:37:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 5:37:56 AM EDT by Frankenstein]
thanks for the stats. [headbang]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:54:46 AM EDT
I used to think that 'reasonable restrictions' were OK until I started asking myself who defines'reasonable'. Who does? Sarah Brady? If so, adios RKBA. Me? Adios 1934 NFA. To me, you either have a right or you don't. OMHO, though, you can LOSE a right.(Felons, Mental incompetents, f'rinstance) But the way I see it, the issue is pretty much black or white.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 7:13:24 AM EDT
Yep. A key point is that the word "reasonable" is very subjective. To me, "reasonable" may mean that firearms sales should only be to law-abiding adults. To Sarah Brady "reasonable" means "Ban them all!" It's time we dig in our heels and stop compromising. Every compromise erodes RKBA and advances to anti's agenda.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 7:57:20 AM EDT
I point you to three ammendments in the BOR..... Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against [b]unreasonable[/b] searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [i]And Next...[/i] Amendment VIII [b]Excessive[/b] bail shall not be required, nor [b]excessive[/b] fines imposed, nor cruel and [b]unusual[/b] punishments inflicted. [i] And Now....[/i] Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [b]shall not be infringed.[/b] In closing, the writers demonstrated in clear English they damn well understood the term 'parameters', and if they had wanted excessive or unreasonable included in the Second Ammendment, it would damnw ell be there. It is clear in its position of do not fuckin touch. Period.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 7:58:45 AM EDT
I'm all for registering guns just like we do with cars: Freely and lawfully operate guns on all state and federal, as well as lawfully on private property. Easy purchase of ammunition at any corner service station. May purchase a gun at any age, and may operate it in public on the sixteenth birthday. Learners permits are available for those under adult supervision. Universal state recognition of permit. May purchase guns large and small, light and heavy, fast and slow, efficient and wasteful, airpowered, solarpowered, electric, watercooled, aircooled, hydrogen fueled, smoky, ULEV, utility or specific... Ubiquitous, everyone would own one, and everyone would need one. Automatic and Manual. Operation night and day... Any other ideas???
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:20:37 AM EDT
Registration scares the hell out of me. It provides gubmint with a list of who has what.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:10:53 AM EDT
[squeeeeeeeeeeezing into flame suit] The only "reasonable restriction" I've ever not had a problem with is mandatory background checks, mainly because I think it is a prudent method of ensuring (or at least HELPING to ensure) that felons and other undesireables don't get weapons (at least through legal means). I'm willing to listen to REASONED explanation why I may be wrong, and may even be willing to change my position. As it stands now, however, I don't see background checks (provided the records are duly destroyed once the check is complete) are an infringment on my rights. Frankly, I view them as a protection of sorts. That being said...... [img]http://www.feltonfire.com/flashsuit.jpg[/img] BRING IT ON!
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:20:57 AM EDT
Personally I could care less if a felon had a gunor not. Once they've done their time their debt to society has been repaid. (obviously there are exceptionsto every rule). Now the only "reasonable" gun law that I can think of at the moment would to register MG's and I don't particularly like that notion at the moment. "reasonable restrictions" is today what "for the children" was in the 90's.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:51:54 AM EDT
IMO - "reasonable restrictions" on guns are as odious as "reasonable restrictions" on speech, religion, press, or assembly. ALL bad.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 1:03:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod: I'm willing to listen to REASONED explanation why I may be wrong, and may even be willing to change my position.
View Quote
I would again direct you to read my post above. It goes directly to point and clearly demonstrates the [b]intent[/b] of the so called [/i]Founding Fathers[/i]. The BOR is a written explanation of [b]OUR Creator Endowed Rights[/b] in this Country, only one right which was specifically written, [b]shall not be infringed[/b]. Others contained [i]reasonable[/i] and [i]excessive[/i] clauses.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 1:09:56 PM EDT
www.flashbunny.org check out the "2 minute gunshow loophole primer" on the left.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 1:26:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: [url]www.flashbunny.org[/url] check out the "2 minute gunshow loophole primer" on the left.
View Quote
Made it hot...
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 2:36:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PONY_DRIVER: Personally I could care less if a felon had a gun or not. Once they've done their time their debt to society has been repaid. (obviously there are exceptionsto every rule).
When I began reading this I cringed, but as I am open to re-evaluating my personal views I think you are right. I guess unless in the case of repeat offenders you may have just changed my thinking. If the true purpose of our justice system is to "correct" improper behavior and it is not habitual, why not allow all the rights back including RKBA? Also, I was questioned once about selling mags to a resptricted state. The question was will you sell to me as I am an LEO? I said no very apologetically, and explained that I did not have the time to research it to my satisfaction. He replied to me that since I was a hi-cap mag seller I ought to be familiar with the laws. The point being I rarely ever sell mags, but I was labeled a "mag seller" for one transaction. Same application to selling a rifle once in a great while and being a gun dealer.
Top Top