Tell me again how being armed will save you from a mentally unstable person with a gun?

[normiss 644]

You know I agree Bill...just different approaches following the same lines.
I don't want to argue with you.

I just can't and won't understand a knee=jerk reaction that takes us back to stoopid technical regulations on numbers of this, length of that....it only applies to legal gun owners, new production weapons and accessories, and previously manufactured weapons and accessories will not and can not be removed from being legal.
Criminals and loonies do not, will not, can not, care not, worry not about laws in any fashion.
Get with Kallend on a secret detection of any mental flaws issues that could possibly result in injury to oneself or others in any magnitude.

WTF could that possibly change?



Nothing.


May I have a fly swatter please?

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

The risks are worth it when you are talking about MY kids but are not worth it at all when talking about YOURS.

My kid is better than your kid. Got it.

Not at all. If you can afford private school for your kids, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.

If you can't afford private school, maybe stop being so lazy and work harder. This is America, anybody can be successful if they just work hard enough.

Why do you want the government to pay for something, just because rich people can afford it? You are either extremely jealous, or a communist.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

. Nobody is proposing to take away your daddy's gun.

M14 AR. They want to ban similar guns. And saying that is not being proposed is bullshit.

What tin foil hat are you wearing.

The ar and high cap mags are what people are talking about. Here you talk banning my gun then you say thats not what you propose.

You can't reason with the anti gun. They're nuts.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Also, Quade I used fathers as our fathers, not as my father. And since you thought my dad died in Viet Nam and they way you disrespected who you thought was my dad and our fathers with your demeaning daddy reference places you at the bottom of the slag pile.
Its your kind this nation needs worried about and your out there proposing blowing up US citizens without due process.

[billvon 2,478]

>The risks of an unarmed public could be more than the deaths of hundreds, perhaps
>millions of kids and their parents. And history has show this to be true.

Why not trillions? It could be trillions.

But in any case no one is suggesting "unarming" everyone.

[normiss 644]

I'd really hate to get an itch.

[billvon 2,478]

>I just can't and won't understand a knee=jerk reaction that takes us back to stoopid
>technical regulations on numbers of this, length of that....

I agree. What will help:

Background checks for all gun sales.
Laws against lying on background checks.
Laws against selling to known felons.
A system that allows crazy people who have been detained by police (or hospitals) to have their guns confiscated temporarily until their competence is determined.

[regulator 0]

My father carried an M1 I inherited two years ago.

I carried an M-16

[normiss 644]

No disagreement here.

Aren't those middle two already true?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

No disagreement here.

Aren't those middle two already true?

Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales. He's proposing hiring millions of people to supervise sales of private guns and busting people for selling a gun to a felon. The only way to find out if he's a felon is to complete the background check otherwise you'd might end up a felon yourself if you sell to a felon. And of course since we have a criminal justice industry, the more felons the better for LEO job security. More laws, rules=more perps just what they want.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

No disagreement here.

Aren't those middle two already true?

Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales. He's proposing hiring millions of people to supervise sales of private guns and busting people for selling a gun to a felon. The only way to find out if he's a felon is to complete the background check otherwise you'd might end up a felon yourself if you sell to a felon. And of course since we have a criminal justice industry, the more felons the better for LEO job security. More laws, rules=more perps just what they want.

Why do you approve of selling guns to felons? Why do you hate law abiding citizens?

...

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

No disagreement here.

Aren't those middle two already true?

Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales. He's proposing hiring millions of people to supervise sales of private guns and busting people for selling a gun to a felon. The only way to find out if he's a felon is to complete the background check otherwise you'd might end up a felon yourself if you sell to a felon. And of course since we have a criminal justice industry, the more felons the better for LEO job security. More laws, rules=more perps just what they want.

Well at least you're not playing the race card this time. Of course, you'd just call it the "ghetto card". No race reference intended, no sirree. Anyhow, that's progress. For you.

[billvon 2,478]

>Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales.

Exactly. Close the loophole. Background checks for everyone, not just some.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You do realize our fathers died carrying the AR fighting for your freedom

There are some Americans who died carrying the AR for our freedom. But not all of them. The warriors who died carrying the AR in Vietnam and Iraq did not die for any Americans' freedom; they were cannon fodder for political agendas and the military-industrial complex. Brave as they were, their deaths were nothing more than a tragic waste.

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

>Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales.

Exactly. Close the loophole. Background checks for everyone, not just some.

Seems like yet another useless (read: unenforceable) law.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales.

Exactly. Close the loophole. Background checks for everyone, not just some.

It not a loop hole. Some states don't require background checks on private sales.

Who is going to do all these background checks when there are millions of private sales annually. They can't even do over the counter new gun sales now. In some states you're a month out from geting the gun you bought just waiting on ATF to do the background check. And consumers are pissed about that. You get gas right away, pills, gun powder, chain saws, knives, automobiles, bobcats, hatchet, and rope... with no background check or having to wait to receive your merchandise. OH forgot wood chipper and rat poison.
That if a killer wants to kill he might not need a gun.

I'm all far sheltering a violent person from weapons but how can you enforce that or police that as we've seen the bad guys give us little clues that they are going to go balistic.

Locks on doors is our best hope and telling kids NFL football is not the way to a good future. Science and math are. Much better than making millions of law abiding citizens having to pay more and wait longer for the items they want to buy and can legally buy, at the moment.

[1969912 0]

Quote

>Yes those are true and background checks are also required for other than private sales.

Exactly. Close the loophole. Background checks for everyone, not just some.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[quade 3]

Quote

Also, Quade I used fathers as our fathers, not as my father.

What other words do you use that you don't mean to use? Do I need to keep a list handy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[1969912 0]

California can't even afford to take guns from known prohibited persons: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/california-faces-backlog-40000-weapons-in-hands-felons-mentally-ill/?test=latestnews

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, Quade I used fathers as our fathers, not as my father.

What other words do you use that you don't mean to use? Do I need to keep a list handy?

I meant fathers as our fathers and I'm not talking about God. You didn't read it Daddy, that is if you are truly a daddy and have kids, You disrespected all dads including your own by your inference. Your dad fought in war. You said he used an M1. That means he defended our rights. And you sit there claiming people shouldn't be allowed to KEEP a firearm that might have intrinsic meaning beyond KEEPING a firearm for only defense. KEEP an arm is the rule. If you disrespect your own dad, it's clear you have little regards for anyone else. Very telling. A narcissist I presume.

[quade 3]

Quote

And you sit there claiming people shouldn't be allowed to KEEP a firearm that might have intrinsic meaning beyond KEEPING a firearm for only defense.

Again, NOBODY is proposing to take your guns. I certainly didn't write what you've just claimed.

If your "fathers" gave you an AR-15, there is NO proposal to take it away. None. Zero.

Stop ranting about things that aren't happening.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

And you sit there claiming people shouldn't be allowed to KEEP a firearm that might have intrinsic meaning beyond KEEPING a firearm for only defense.

Again, NOBODY is proposing to take your guns. I certainly didn't write what you've just claimed.

If your "fathers" gave you an AR-15, there is NO proposal to take it away. None. Zero.

Stop ranting about things that aren't happening.

If the proposal was to confiscate them, you'd be going right along with it, providing some other justification for it being acceptable and constitutional.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And you sit there claiming people shouldn't be allowed to KEEP a firearm that might have intrinsic meaning beyond KEEPING a firearm for only defense.

Again, NOBODY is proposing to take your guns. I certainly didn't write what you've just claimed.
If your "fathers" gave you an AR-15, there is NO proposal to take it away. None. Zero.
Stop ranting about things that aren't happening.

If the proposal was to confiscate them, you'd be going right along with it, providing some other justification for it being acceptable and constitutional.

You assume too much.

I don't want gun confiscations any more than you do, with the exception of people who ought naught to have them in the first place like felons and the mentally unstable.

You see it as an absolute. It's not. People can be for personal protection AND also for reasonable regulation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,478]

>It not a loop hole. Some states don't require background checks on private sales.

That's the loophole.

>I'm all far sheltering a violent person from weapons but how can you enforce that

Do a background check.

>And consumers are pissed about that.

==========================
Universal background checks, favored heavily in polls, emerging as likeliest gun control reform

By Dan Friedman / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Monday, February 4, 2013, 9:45 PM
Updated: Monday, February 4, 2013, 11:33 PM

WASHINGTON — Given a push from President Obama on Monday, a proposal to make background checks on firearms sales universal is emerging as the gun control reform most likely to be approved on Capitol Hill.

A measure that would end the loophole allowing unlicensed private dealers to sell guns without running a background check on buyers will be the centerpiece of a larger gun measure Democrats plan to take up as soon as this month, Senate aides said.

The background check provision is gathering support on Capitol Hill, even from some conservatives, in part because it is widely popular — a point Obama made in Minneapolis on Monday while stumping for legislative action to reduce gun violence.

“The vast majority of Americans, including a majority of gun owners, support requiring criminal background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun,” Obama said.
Other gun control proposals poll well, but universal background checks has long been “incredibly popular,” winning support from 80-90% of respondents in a host of recent national polls, noted Margie Omero, a pollster who studies the issue.
==============================

[1969912 0]

So why not confiscate guns from known prohibited persons RIGHT NOW? There are thousands in CA alone. I realize it's pointless to try to discuss this with you; you'll come up with some bullshit evasion just like BV and kallend. Good night.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG