Washington, D.C. Banning Guns Again

[downwardspiral 0]

Sweet! What's your gamertag? I wanna see if I have your dog tags yet.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[FreeflyChile 0]

Pisco Sour78

Yours?

[downwardspiral 0]

Since downwardspiral is too long....


Jspiral

I'll send you a friend request.


Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

-guns are bad
-no guns are good
-No guns are bad.
-No! Guns are good.
- Oops I mean gun bans are bad!
- No gun bans are good!

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What was needed, IMHO, was not a general ban, but a more careful, thorough, and strictly enforced screening process to make it (much more) difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

....to speak in public

....to have children

....to vote

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm told by reliable sources that, for example, Texas has a very good system for identifying people who shouldn't have a CCW permit.

Oddly enough, it's virtually the SAME as what's required FEDERALLY for purchase (fingerprint cards).

I'm sure you have a point, somewhere?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

What was needed, IMHO, was not a general ban, but a more careful, thorough, and strictly enforced screening process to make it (much more) difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

....to speak in public

....to have children

....to vote

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue that you have with Kallend's statement. Do you think that there *shouldn't* be anything that would make it more difficult for mentally ill people to get firearms? As in, they can just like anyone else?

Again, just asking for clarification.

[mnealtx 0]

Mentally ill people are ALREADY barred from purchase - something Kallend oh-so-conveniently forgets to mention.

Can YOU tell EVERY TIME if someone is mentally ill, on sight? I can't.

Do you KNOW with 100% accuracy that person A is going to flip their lid and try to kill someone? I don't.

Once you do it for ONE right, you open up the door to do it for all the others.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[FreeflyChile 0]

Yeah, I know all about the slippery-slope arguments.

It just sounded from the posts that you were against having those kinds of checks, so that's why I asked for clarification.

I don't claim to know who's mentally ill on sight, or to know when they'll go crazy. I just pictured the crazy guy that yells at everyone on the El being able to get a gun, and that thought was kind of scary.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Yeah, I know all about the slippery-slope arguments.

It just sounded from the posts that you were against having those kinds of checks, so that's why I asked for clarification.

I don't claim to know who's mentally ill on sight, or to know when they'll go crazy. I just pictured the crazy guy that yells at everyone on the El being able to get a gun, and that thought was kind of scary.

I *am* against more useless regulation - as I said above, the mentally ill are ALREADY barred from purchase. Kallend throws that out there to try and stifle any discussion - "What, you meant you APPROVE of the mentally ill having firearms?"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

What was needed, IMHO, was not a general ban, but a more careful, thorough, and strictly enforced screening process to make it (much more) difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

....to speak in public

....to have children

....to vote

I don't think any of those activities have led to mass murder.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, I know all about the slippery-slope arguments.

It just sounded from the posts that you were against having those kinds of checks, so that's why I asked for clarification.

I don't claim to know who's mentally ill on sight, or to know when they'll go crazy. I just pictured the crazy guy that yells at everyone on the El being able to get a gun, and that thought was kind of scary.

I *am* against more useless regulation - as I said above, the mentally ill are ALREADY barred from purchase. Kallend throws that out there to try and stifle any discussion - "What, you meant you APPROVE of the mentally ill having firearms?"

Being barred from purchase is useless unless strictly enforced, which it isn't at present.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

I'm told by reliable sources that, for example, Texas has a very good system for identifying people who shouldn't have a CCW permit.

Oddly enough, it's virtually the SAME as what's required FEDERALLY for purchase (fingerprint cards).

I'm sure you have a point, somewhere?

Well, 999 is virtually the same as 1000. In fact, 999 is nearly more than 1000. We had the same discussion before and each time you made the same claim and then had to retract it.

I wonder why the TX CCW background checks take up to 60 days (source, TCHA). Could it be that they are more THOROUGH?

Be 21 years old. (Members and former members of the armed forces must be 18.)
Have a clean criminal history, including military service and recent juvenile records.
Not be under a protective order.
Not be chemically dependent.
Not be of unsound mind.
Not be delinquent in paying fines, fees, child support, student loans, etc.
Be eligible to purchase a handgun by completing the NICS check.
Complete required training.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I wonder why the TX CCW background checks take up to 60 days (source, TCHA). Could it be that they are more THOROUGH?

> Not be delinquent in paying fines, fees, child support, student loans, etc.

Probably this one. Takes a bit longer to confirm they don't have money coming. Also, whereas the instant check has to answer fairly quickly and can default to no if its unclear, the CCW folks can look up any potential flags before issuance.

Since when is an obscure 4 letter acronym a source?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What was needed, IMHO, was not a general ban, but a more careful, thorough, and strictly enforced screening process to make it (much more) difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

....to speak in public

....to have children

....to vote

I don't think any of those activities have led to mass murder.

Voting and public speaking have. It's just that after a certain point we call it "genoicde" instead of "mass murder."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What was needed, IMHO, was not a general ban, but a more careful, thorough, and strictly enforced screening process to make it (much more) difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

....to speak in public

....to have children

....to vote

I don't think any of those activities have led to mass murder.

Really? So a right is only important as long as nobody is hurt?
You may want to brush up on history, as I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers fought a WAR over those rights.

I could be wrong, though - I haven't seen the latest 'revision' of history books that they're using in school these days.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yeah, I know all about the slippery-slope arguments.

It just sounded from the posts that you were against having those kinds of checks, so that's why I asked for clarification.

I don't claim to know who's mentally ill on sight, or to know when they'll go crazy. I just pictured the crazy guy that yells at everyone on the El being able to get a gun, and that thought was kind of scary.

I *am* against more useless regulation - as I said above, the mentally ill are ALREADY barred from purchase. Kallend throws that out there to try and stifle any discussion - "What, you meant you APPROVE of the mentally ill having firearms?"

Being barred from purchase is useless unless strictly enforced, which it isn't at present.

Then go bitch at the Brady bunch for not demanding that THEIR background check laws aren't being enforced.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Well, 999 is virtually the same as 1000. In fact, 999 is nearly more than 1000. We had the same discussion before and each time you made the same claim and then had to retract it.

That is correct - I had forgotten that the CHL requires fingerprints, where purchase does not.

Quote

I wonder why the TX CCW background checks take up to 60 days (source, TCHA). Could it be that they are more THOROUGH?

Possibly, but I doubt it - more likely because they are searching state and local records rather than a yes/no flag for a federal query.

Sorry, but we don't need MORE laws to fix a database.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Well, 999 is virtually the same as 1000. In fact, 999 is nearly more than 1000. We had the same discussion before and each time you made the same claim and then had to retract it.

That is correct - I had forgotten that the CHL requires fingerprints, where purchase does not.

Quote

I wonder why the TX CCW background checks take up to 60 days (source, TCHA). Could it be that they are more THOROUGH?

Possibly, but I doubt it - more likely because they are searching state and local records rather than a yes/no flag for a federal query.

Sorry, but we don't need MORE laws to fix a database.

If there were no cases of felons or the mentally ill obtaining guns "legally" (ha ha) and committing crimes with them you might just have a point. As there are many cases, you're just throwing dust.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, 999 is virtually the same as 1000. In fact, 999 is nearly more than 1000. We had the same discussion before and each time you made the same claim and then had to retract it.

That is correct - I had forgotten that the CHL requires fingerprints, where purchase does not.

Quote

I wonder why the TX CCW background checks take up to 60 days (source, TCHA). Could it be that they are more THOROUGH?

Possibly, but I doubt it - more likely because they are searching state and local records rather than a yes/no flag for a federal query.

Sorry, but we don't need MORE laws to fix a database.

If there were no cases of felons or the mentally ill obtaining guns "legally" (ha ha) and committing crimes with them you might just have a point. As there are many cases, you're just throwing dust.

There's someone throwing SOMEthing but it's not me. There's already plenty of laws about this - demand they be enforced rather than making MORE that criminals won't obey and that hinder the law-abiding.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, 999 is virtually the same as 1000. In fact, 999 is nearly more than 1000. We had the same discussion before and each time you made the same claim and then had to retract it.

That is correct - I had forgotten that the CHL requires fingerprints, where purchase does not.

Quote

I wonder why the TX CCW background checks take up to 60 days (source, TCHA). Could it be that they are more THOROUGH?

Possibly, but I doubt it - more likely because they are searching state and local records rather than a yes/no flag for a federal query.

Sorry, but we don't need MORE laws to fix a database.

If there were no cases of felons or the mentally ill obtaining guns "legally" (ha ha) and committing crimes with them you might just have a point. As there are many cases, you're just throwing dust.

There's someone throwing SOMEthing but it's not me. There's already plenty of laws about this - demand they be enforced rather than making MORE that criminals won't obey and that hinder the law-abiding.

I can only guess that you hit "post" without reading what's been written, AGAIN.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, 999 is virtually the same as 1000. In fact, 999 is nearly more than 1000. We had the same discussion before and each time you made the same claim and then had to retract it.

That is correct - I had forgotten that the CHL requires fingerprints, where purchase does not.

Quote

I wonder why the TX CCW background checks take up to 60 days (source, TCHA). Could it be that they are more THOROUGH?

Possibly, but I doubt it - more likely because they are searching state and local records rather than a yes/no flag for a federal query.

Sorry, but we don't need MORE laws to fix a database.

If there were no cases of felons or the mentally ill obtaining guns "legally" (ha ha) and committing crimes with them you might just have a point. As there are many cases, you're just throwing dust.

There's someone throwing SOMEthing but it's not me. There's already plenty of laws about this - demand they be enforced rather than making MORE that criminals won't obey and that hinder the law-abiding.

I can only guess that you hit "post" without reading what's been written, AGAIN.

You would be incorrect. Yet another "don't you care if felons and the insane get guns" post from you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[normiss 622]

In Florida (not sure of other states) once a felon has "paid his debt to society" his gun and voting rights are restored.
So felons CAN (and do) legally posess weapons.

[nate25 0]

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.


he wants to take your guns

[akarunway 1]

Quote

In Florida (not sure of other states) once a felon has "paid his debt to society" his gun and voting rights are restored.
So felons CAN (and do) legally posess weapons.

Some info>https://fpc.state.fl.us/Clemency.htm Best have lots of money to hire the best lawyer to suck the Gov's dick.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Well, if nothing else, this allows the courts to further 'tweak' the SCs recent ruling. With laws (and subsequent lawsuits), the actual location of the line drawn w/r/t the 2nd amendment will become clearer.

Well, the most puzzling thing is why people persist in saying that gun control is necessary at all. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT THWART CRIME. IT HAS NOT THE CAPACITY TO AFFECT CRIMINALS.

Now, punishment for misusing guns, sure, that affects criminals. But not telling them they're not supposed to be carrying guns or buying them illegally.

So after all the failures of gun control to help decrease the crime rate in D.C., what possible excuse can they have for wishing to cling to, and fight tooth-and-nail for, their gun ban?

Can anyone dispute the FACT that prior to the ban, the crime rate was lower; it SOARED during the 32 years of the ban, while places that started actually issuing licenses to carry experienced significant decreases in crime rates?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire