Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Reasonable Gun Restrictions
Friday, July 27, 2012 5:15 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Hello, I try to be very careful with language. Usually, even when I am admonishing someone, I try to use highly controlled words. I suffer from CRS to the extent that I sometimes wonder if I am inheriting my family's preponderance of Alzheimer's. Anyway, I'll try to convert my post to a plainer style for convenience. This is the stuff I think in my head and then repackage because I find the format of my own thoughts to be repugnant sometimes. I used to get in a lot of trouble before I learned to re-constitute my words and feelings into a constructive and less abrasive form. Quote:Are you suggesting I am lying about my beliefs? Hey, Doesn't that take the cake? Right after you called bullshit on what other people say THEY believe, now you're trying to take offense about the same thing from ME. Did I offend you some time in the past? Do you have some kind of a grudge? I sure don't detect any sweetness in your posts, Magons. If I crapped on you sometime, I am sorry. I don't remember what I did to you, I sure don't like to crap on anyone, and even if I did want to crap on someone, it wouldn't be you. All the same, I have to cry foul at that comment right there, after what you said before. Truth be told, I don't know what the fuck you believe, but I got a feeling lately that there's a whole bag of negativity on the subject of guns that you keep slung over one shoulder. If you say you're not an abolitionist, I'll believe you, but I honestly have no idea what you DO believe reasonable gun rights should be. Now onto the topic of remembering, because it's a topic that seems to have gotten all hot lately. Let me tell you something, Magons. There is a girl who has sat three seats up from me at work for SIX MONTHS and I have no idea what her name is unless I scoot up and read the nametag on her cubicle, never mind where she was born. She's a wonderful person and a great coworker and I've collaborated with her and spoken to her on a variety of topics. And I value her. I really do. But I couldn't tell you her name if the devil was holding my soul hostage. That's my failing. It has dick all to do with her, and it's certainly no intentional slight. It actually worries me awful some days. Just the other day, Frem was talking to me and he was like, "You remember the stuff I sent you about XYZ?" And I was like, "That sounds familiar" while trying to remember what the hell XYZ was. That's just me. Half of what goes in the brainpan gets lost. Somewhere upthread, or maybe in a similar thread, some equally unobservant or unrecollecting asshole tried to explain to me that not all freedom fighters are good, that some of them are tyrants in their own right. This shit is being explained to a fellow who grew up in the middle of the Cuban exile community. This happens more than you'd think, despite the fact that I've probably written a half dozen posts about Cuba and Castro and Batista. I guess some other jerk besides myself either doesn't consider memorizing my posts to be at the top of their list of priorities, or they also suffer from a heavy dose of CRS. (Can't Remember Shit.) Was it you? I don't fucking know and I'm tired of scrolling up and down through this thread and others because I can't remember the details of a particular phrase or argument. Half the time I remember 'someone said something about this' but I can't remember who it was or what they said exactly or if it was today or last week. Was it you, Magons? Or was it someone else who tried to explain to me that freedom fighters can be douchebags and oppressors? As for making broad assumptions about people, well hell, I've done it. Putting things in files is the only way I get along, and sometimes something that oughta be in file A ends up in file B. When people do that to me, I cry bloody murder. Or I used to. I'm kinda learning that it's just gonna happen. I'm trying not to be all uptight about it. Can't be uptight about something I do myself, now, can I? Anyhow, the point of this, beyond calling hypocrisy on your outrage, is to admit that my own outrage has a heavy dose of hypocrisy in it. I like you, Magons. I didn't mean to pee in your cup of coffee. I assume that when you say shit that rubs me wrong, you're not trying to pee in MY cup. Can we call it quits to any bullshit negativity going on and just talk polite like and get along? I'd like that. You're a sharp cookie and I don't like having you on the wrong end of my ledger. --Anthony
Quote:Are you suggesting I am lying about my beliefs?
Friday, July 27, 2012 5:25 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Well, you're suggesting some kind of reasonable restrictions. What are they? Just for fun, then, here are some: No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions (or maybe just felonies?). Attempts at purchase or possession by these people result in Federal prosecution. Background checks in place to identify these folks.
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Well, you're suggesting some kind of reasonable restrictions. What are they?
Quote: Federal prosecutions of persons otherwise legally entitled to purchase firearms who knowingly purchase them for felons. Additional Federal prosecution for use of a firearm in commission of a crime by a convicted felon.
Quote: No sales to folks who have been adjudged incompetent or insane (or whatever the term of art is currently). Reporting and background checks to identify these folks.
Quote: Checks more stringent than regular background checks for those purchasing automatic weapons and, for example, silenced weapons. Possible higher licensing fees or bonds.
Quote:Posted by Anthony: The punchline, of course, is that these restrictions are in place.
Friday, July 27, 2012 5:34 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: There was another thread where militias were discussed. I have no idea when or what the title was, but in it I believe I supported the establishment of militias for purpose of a country's defence. A little along the swiss lines, where there is compulsory weapons ownership once you have received military training. I believe the swiss model is more what the founders of the constitution intended. In order for this to work, the professional army would be more or less disbanded to be replaced by military trained citizens, who could form militias should the need for national defence arrive. I would prefer that citizens did not have to keep their military grade weapons in their own home, but that some sort of community venue where weapons could be securely held and practised. The militias could receive some federal funding, but would operate independantly from the government. Community militias would vote before being involved in military action. Individual gun ownership would be fairly restricted in my world, with there being lots of background checks, licencing, and restriction over the type of weaponry owned and amount of ammo able to be purchased. In the real world, the US would never go for something like this, not in my lifetime. not until there are some serious changing in attitudes, and how do you do this, when words like 'inalienable rights' are used, I have no idea.
Friday, July 27, 2012 5:49 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko:
Friday, July 27, 2012 6:32 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I like almost every part of this. I believe the Swiss keep guns in the home, though, and it makes tactical sense to do so, because if you stash them all in a neighborhood Keep, all one has to do to disarm the neighborhood is knock over the Keep. Harder to knock off every house all at the same time. :) Also, I'd have a tiered licensing system with a floor and practically no ceiling. Minimum licensing requirements would get you a single-shot shotgun, a revolver, a bolt-action rifle. Next tier gets you to semi-auto pistols and carbines or pump-action shotguns. Next up moves you to higher-capacity magazines, etc., all the way up to and including full-auto machineguns, silenced weapons, sniper rifles, RPGs, and so on. I was thinking that you could have some pretty tight security around the keep, and that it would be easier to knock off a couple of houses and find yourself with some pretty high grade weaponry. But yes, the swiss do keep them at home. I believe they have some tight regulations about how they are stored and maintained. Switzerland, now there is a place with regulations. But would you call it a tyranny? Interesting thought.
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I like almost every part of this. I believe the Swiss keep guns in the home, though, and it makes tactical sense to do so, because if you stash them all in a neighborhood Keep, all one has to do to disarm the neighborhood is knock over the Keep. Harder to knock off every house all at the same time. :) Also, I'd have a tiered licensing system with a floor and practically no ceiling. Minimum licensing requirements would get you a single-shot shotgun, a revolver, a bolt-action rifle. Next tier gets you to semi-auto pistols and carbines or pump-action shotguns. Next up moves you to higher-capacity magazines, etc., all the way up to and including full-auto machineguns, silenced weapons, sniper rifles, RPGs, and so on.
Quote: I like your idea of tiered licensing system. I'd add that you couldn't have access to some of the higher tech stuff without the ongoing military training, which would also include psych evaluations (as they do in the military here). In that way you rid yourself of the risk of people with mental health conditions that might lead them to act in violent ways, because as the Aurora shootings show, there are plenty of people with undiagnosed conditions out there that are not going to show up in a mental health check.
Friday, July 27, 2012 7:11 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Quote:Background checks for ALL firearms purchases? No loopholes for person-to-person sales?
Quote:This is unclear.
Quote:Are they? I mean, I know most of them are, but they aren't ALL in place, are they? This, for instance: "No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions"
Quote:What about more stringent background checks and licensing/bonding fees for those purchasing semi-auto weapons or large-capacity magazines?
Friday, July 27, 2012 7:17 PM
Quote:Some worthless troll said earlier that the amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", and that was all he needs to know. So I guess the bit about "A well regulated militia..." just means absolutely nothing to him. It says right there in the Amendment that said militia can be - MUST BE, in fact, for the security of the free State - regulated.
Friday, July 27, 2012 7:30 PM
Quote:Edit: Personally I find your unedited post more palatable than your edited ones. Maybe that is because that is how Australians generally talk to one another ;)
Friday, July 27, 2012 7:42 PM
Friday, July 27, 2012 8:26 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote:Background checks for ALL firearms purchases? No loopholes for person-to-person sales? Hello, This is something that has actually bothered me for some time. I think any responsible gun seller would want a way to check and make sure that the person he's selling a gun to isn't a felon. I think if I had access to the background check system I'd use it. I wouldn't mind seeing this become public access and mandatory even for person-to-person sales. My singular reservation is a lack of trust in the government not to break faith with law-abiding gun owners.
Quote: Quote:This is unclear. He means if YOU can buy a weapon legally, and you use that power to buy a weapon FOR a felon's use (or anyone not authorized to own a gun) then YOU are committing a crime. He also means that if a felon (who isn't allowed to have a gun) uses a gun in the commission of a crime, they get extra punishment tacked on. Quote:Are they? I mean, I know most of them are, but they aren't ALL in place, are they? This, for instance: "No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions" You left out the important additive he left in, didn't you? He added the felon bit in parenthesis, and you left it out.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Hello Mike, I didn't want you to think I was spouting off nonsense, so I thought I'd find some evidence for you.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:02 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Hello, The punchline, of course, is that these restrictions are in place.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I wonder if there isn't some size limit on the private ownership of cannons and howitzers. Perhaps 100mm is the limit; I have no real idea. I remember seeing where Barret was working on a 25mm version of their .50 caliber sniper rifle, which if memory serves would qualify as artillery.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Hello, The punchline, of course, is that these restrictions are in place. In some form, most of them are. What's interesting about them, though, is that when I've brought them up in a discussion with folks who are reasonably anti-gun, they say they sound like a good idea, and wish such laws could be passed.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 5:35 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:04 AM
Quote: Nobody mentioned the internet, either, which is another great way people (specifically the guy in question) get around supposed "restrictions".
Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Quote: Nobody mentioned the internet, either, which is another great way people (specifically the guy in question) get around supposed "restrictions". Hello, Actually Niki, I've found that purchasing a gun on the internet involves a lot more red tape than purchasing one person-to-person or at a gun show. This is because I can't buy a gun on the internet unless it is a blackpowder antique. Well, I can pay for it, but then it has to be shipped to a proper dealer who runs the necessary checks and collects a fee. If there is a way around this, I've yet to find it.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 9:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Gun shows and person-to-person sales are a prime example, and I abhor it. IF said restrictions were actually enforced, it would be sufficient for me. Nobody mentioned the internet, either, which is another great way people (specifically the guy in question) get around supposed "restrictions".
Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:33 AM
PIRATENEWS
John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!
Quote:"The only amendment left in the Constitution is the Second one. If you take away the right to due process, habeas corpus, the prohibition against cruel and unusual treatment because they now torture, if they can take all these away, they can take away the guns. Probably won't be much longer. They certainly have a Police State, it's in place, and we no longer have any rights. They can bring any kind of charges against anybody at any time. Or they can simply dissappear them. There's no longer any protection from being thrown in a dungeon for the rest of your life, without ever being told why you're there, hahaha, much less a court being told, or a jury, or any evidence presented. So, as far as I can tell, the Constitution no longer exists for any constraints on the power of government, and the page has turned, hahaha. Or they'll kill you with a drone." -Dr Paul Craig Roberts PhD, Assistant Secretary of the US Department of the Treasury, Infowars Radio, 25 July 2012 youtube.com/watch?v=eL-bI6nnauc "We need to brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way." -US attorney general Eric Holder, Massmurdering Butcher of Operation Fast and Furious and the OK City Bombing, CSPAN2, 1985
Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: Hello Mike, I didn't want you to think I was spouting off nonsense, so I thought I'd find some evidence for you. Privately Owned 90mm Cannon http://m18hellcat.com/m18hellcat/My_Hellcat.html "My Hellcat" a website belonging to a man who restored a hellcat Tank Destroyer. I don't know if this is the same Hellcat or a different one firing its main gun. Another such video of the Hellcat. If you watch it for long enough, you'll hear the demonstrators talking about the tank being privately owned. They also talk about the gun and the type of ammo it is firing and also the price of the ammunition. --Anthony Note to Self: Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.) Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps.... Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die. “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
Saturday, July 28, 2012 1:43 PM
Quote:Pretty much all the guns at most gun shows are sold by dealers and must include a Federal background check.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: There are plenty of private citizens selling all kinds of weapons at these shows. Some of them come with rifles slung over shoulders, looking for the best deal on a sale. Many have pistols in zipped cases, hoping for a good trade. Sometimes they will trade with and buy from each other. It's not so rare a jewel as you portray.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:01 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:21 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:28 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: TROLL "gun ownership" The constitution says 'arms'. SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:59 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:01 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: "We can presume that since firearms were a common arm at the time, they were intended." So we can agree that people have the constitutional rights to own this: And probably not this: tanks ... fighter planes ... grenade launchers or rocket launchers ... machineguns, anti-personnel explosives, anti-vehicle rockets ... SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:25 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:31 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:41 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:54 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:03 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: "I never intended to make arguments about the second amendment a feature of this thread." Then what we'll discuss is the effects of the availability of different types of arms on the society, the potential positive outcomes, the potential negative outcomes, whether one prevails over the other, and what regulations (including outright bans) might be used to mitigate the negatives and/ or enhance the positives on their merits; without resorting to interpreting the constitution or its historical intent. Also, I'm not sure if I missed it - did you reply to my question about nukes? SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.
Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:06 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:45 PM
Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:52 PM
Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:22 AM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Blame Dubya for that one. He apparently got a burr in his ass after being called out for serving in a "Champagne unit" in the Guard during 'Nam, thereby neatly getting around ever having to serve in the war, so he made sure that the Guard would be "real" fighters once there was no chance in hell he'd ever have to face anything more dangerous than a pretzel or a hurled shoe. Why, when I mention national service, is it assumed I'm talking military service? Weapons training, of course, would be part of it, but that doesn't make it military, unless you consider police and Boy Scouts to be military outfits as well. National service would be a one- or two-year stint - probably pre-college, after high school - where you'd have a choice how and where you served, within some limits. Peace Corps, Job Corps, volunteer firefighter (could sure use some of those about now, huh?), candy-striper at a hospital, crossing guard for a school, bus driver for same, etc. - you serve, you're paid (a pittance), you're trained, you gain some discipline and respect for hard work, and you help your country. Of course the right will never support such a thing - it reeks of patriotism rather than selfishness!
Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: From what I've read, most of the firearms in the hands of criminals are purchased by strawman buyers, who are also seldom prosecuted by the Justice Department.
Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:38 AM
Quote: Posted by Jack: With the surplus of illegal guns, illegal citizens, and general "bad guys" already out there, how do you intend to keep the guns out of the wrong people's hands when we still can't manage to find a way to prevent illegal civilians and dead citizens from doing something as simple as voting?
Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:44 AM
Quote:2) With all of that paperwork and oversight, who's to say that if you had a bad day at work and didn't check your personal shit at the door (say a bad marriage-turned-divorce) that the government decides that based off of one incident that you're mentally unfit to ever carry a fire-arm and now you're barred from this right even though you've never broken any law?
Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:57 AM
Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote: Posted by Jack: With the surplus of illegal guns, illegal citizens, and general "bad guys" already out there, how do you intend to keep the guns out of the wrong people's hands when we still can't manage to find a way to prevent illegal civilians and dead citizens from doing something as simple as voting? Straw man. You're basing your argument off something you have no evidence of. The state of Pennsylvania has admitted in court testimony that they have been unable to find a single incident of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania or any other state. You may as well be arguing that guns should be unregulated because Martians have invaded the U.S.A.
Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by ANTHONYT: As for how criminals get their guns, I am no authority on that whatsoever. It makes sense, though, that someone must be buying them legally and then handing them over. If so, then requiring background checks for private sales would probably take a big bite out of criminal firearms possession.
Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: This stuff is Federal crimes, but for all the fuss the government makes about illegal guns, they don't seem to be trying too hard to enforce the laws already on the books to try and cut their numbers down.
Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg Well, OK - I'll kick it off. This is the big negative about handguns. To my mind, anything or set of things which purports to be a reason to have handguns with the current level of restriction had better overcome this big negative.
Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:38 AM
Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote: Posted by Jack: With the surplus of illegal guns, illegal citizens, and general "bad guys" already out there, how do you intend to keep the guns out of the wrong people's hands when we still can't manage to find a way to prevent illegal civilians and dead citizens from doing something as simple as voting? Straw man. You're basing your argument off something you have no evidence of. The state of Pennsylvania has admitted in court testimony that they have been unable to find a single incident of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania or any other state. You may as well be arguing that guns should be unregulated because Martians have invaded the U.S.A. Wow Kwick..... I see one straw. Impressive. Unfortunately, there are 49 others missing, and last I checked, neither the Rethugs or Demons gave two shits about Pennsylvania.
Quote: I'm sure as hell not going to take Pennsylvania's competence or "fear factor" of states like California or Illinois and the tax-payer backed thugs who run them as gospel truth that there is no corruption there. Seems like we're both battling with swizzle-sticks... En Garde! EDIT: BTW... ask the Blacks in Flordia who were wronged if they agree with Pennsylvania's findings in your little blurb there..... Ouch... that had to hurt!
Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:40 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL