Kennedy 0 #76 April 12, 2013 Quote"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding? QuoteI suspect it's that part where you leap from "not unlimited" to "any limitations are permissible." It's a deliberate logical lie on your part. And used so many times, it really should be ignored as troll bait. QuoteThe part that you seem to think eliminates due process. Please show me where the SC implied that "not unlimited" means "ignores due process." And what about the word "Commercial" in reference to sales? They seem to get it, and I haven't even discussed it with them. Read this next part slowly and carefully: when SCOTUS mentions felons, they don't mean anyone you believe has committed a felony; they mean convicted felons. By that same token, when the mention mentally ill, they are discussing those whom are legally "mentally ill", as defined by law. It doesn't mean anyone you believe is "nutters" or a threat to themself or others, it means involuntarily committed or adjudicated deficient/ defective in court. Feel free to read that more than once. It'd be nice if you let it sink in, maybe come up with a new response rather than repeating false information. It makes you look like either a fool or a liar.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #77 April 12, 2013 QuoteNot my fault if you can't understand Scalia's writing. He IS reputed to be an intellectual. I would be ecstatic to watch you try to present this bull shit to Scalia. And if he knew you as we do, I'm sure he would use his "If I were king" phrase, saying, "If I were king, you, and people like you, would be put to death." People like you, are exactly why we have the Bill of Rights, which is unnecessary, except because of people like you... And given the moronic (not simply incorrect, but flat out stupid) argument you have attempted to make in this thread, based off one line from an entire opinion (that in itself shows you are wrong)... you clearly have not read his latest book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Note: Very glad that here on the dorkzone, unlike BJ, you can't edit posts months later. We can always refer back to these ridiculous arguments when the next mass shooting occurs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #78 April 12, 2013 Quote>Are you talking private sale? Yes. Not gonna happen. Unenforceable, not necessary, and had there been previously, it would have changed nothing. States simply need to do their jobs... No More Power. And, there are always warning signs. P.S... NY fucked up, and they admitted they have embarrassed themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #79 April 12, 2013 >Not gonna happen. So keep the gun show loophole. Keep it legal for a private seller to sell to a felon as long as he doesn't ask. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #80 April 12, 2013 Quote>Not gonna happen. So keep the gun show loophole. Keep it legal for a private seller to sell to a felon as long as he doesn't ask. So... is the issue and need for more legislation because of felons, or the mentally ill? If this is all to save children, then where you are now going is even more pointless. None of the examples of mass shootings, were felons who got guns through a gun show loophole, NOR, from an individual making a sale to another individual. None. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #81 April 12, 2013 QuoteQuote"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding? The part that you seem to think eliminates due process. Please show me where the SC implied that "not unlimited" means "ignores due process." And what about the word "Commercial" in reference to sales? Where did I write ANYTHING about eliminating due process. If all you guys can do is come up with strawman arguments I guess you have already lost.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #82 April 12, 2013 QuoteQuote>Are you talking private sale? Yes. Not gonna happen. Unenforceable, not necessary, and had there been previously, it would have changed nothing. States simply need to do their jobs... No More Power. And, there are always warning signs. P.S... NY fucked up, and they admitted they have embarrassed themselves. So are you Kennedy's sock puppet?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #83 April 12, 2013 QuoteQuote"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" What part of that is it that you have difficulty understanding? I suspect it's that part where you leap from "not unlimited" to "any limitations are permissible." It's a deliberate logical lie on your part. And used so many times, it really should be ignored as troll bait. Apparently the concept of the double negative escapes you. -(-1) = +1 Try it, you'll like it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #84 April 12, 2013 QuoteQuote>Not gonna happen. So keep the gun show loophole. Keep it legal for a private seller to sell to a felon as long as he doesn't ask. So... is the issue and need for more legislation because of felons, or the mentally ill? If this is all to save children, then where you are now going is even more pointless. None of the examples of mass shootings, were felons who got guns through a gun show loophole, NOR, from an individual making a sale to another individual. None. Your logic is flawed; and if you tried that methodology in a 100-level undergrad course, you'd get an F. Just because a few select nutty mass-murderers didn't get their guns illegally doesn't mean that no mentally or emotionally troubled people skirt the rules to get their guns. For example, according to Rick Warren, the gun his son just used to commit suicide was an unregistered gun, probably un-traceable because its serial number had been scratched off, he bought over the internet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #85 April 12, 2013 Gerald Golke, a 74;year old Pewaukee man, plead guilty in federal court to knowingly selling firearms to someone he knew was a convicted felon at a Wisconsin gun show. A convicted felon informant told Milwaukee police that Golke was traveling to Milwaukee to "sells guns to felons and gang members." Golke sold the guns without processing paperwork and told his purchasers that the "guns [would] be untraceable if used in crimes and then recovered by police." Golke is facing a maximum 10‐ year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine. Source: Jim Stevens, “Pewaukee Man to be Sentenced Next Month for SellingGuns,” Lake County Reporter, December 1, 2010 In January 2010,David Devenny was arrested for illegally selling guns to felons in Washington. Devenny admitted that he sold a KelTec rifle at a gun show in Puyallup, on October 24, 2009—one week before it was used to kill Seattle Police Officer Timothy Brenton and wound his partner Britt Sweeney. Additionally, on February 5, 2010,Devenny sold a .40 caliber Glock pistol and aNorinco SKS rifle to an ATF informant who told Devenny that he was under a restraining order that was in place to prevent him rom“harassing,stalking and threatening an intimate partner.” On November 15, 2010, an undercover ATF agent and a confidential informant with a felony record wentto Devenny’s home. The agen tinformed Devenny that hisfriend had two priorf elony convictions. Nonetheless, Devenny sold the informant two firearms for $850. “Mr. Devenny was illegally selling firearms without a license,” said ATF Special Agent Kelvin Crenshaw. Crenshaw reported they found 42 guns and $32,000 in cash in Devenny’s home. Source: Jeremy Pawloski, “Olympia Man May Have Sold GunUsed to Kill Seattle Police Officer,” The Olympian,November 20, 2010 On March 4, 2010, California resident John Patrick Bedell, 36, opened fire on two police officers at the entrance of the Pentagon. He was armed with two semiautomatic 9mm handguns despite a history of mental illness and early warnings from family members that he might pose a danger to himself and others. Bedell attempted to purchase a firearm in Rancho Cordova, California, in January 2010. The purchase was denied because he failed to pass the required background check as a result of his mental health history. At least one of Bedell’s handguns was obtained through an unregulated private sale in Nevada. ATF traced the Sturm, Ruger&Co. 9mm used by Bedell to a Las Vegas gun show 19 days after he failed his background check. Source: Josh White and SariHorwitz, “Pentagon Shooter’s Gun Had Many Previous Owners,” The Washington Post, March 15, 2010 • Mynor Guerra, 25, a citizen of Guatamala who was residing in Overland Park, Kansas, plead guilty on October 29, 2009 to being an illegal alien in possession oftwo AR 15 semi‐automatic rifles and a high capacity ammunition magazine. The rifles were recovered from his cartrunk along with gun show calendars listing events in several different states. Guerra admitted to buying firearms at gun shows over the previous six months and reselling them to an intermediary who delivered them to members of Mexican drug cartels. Source: Staff Writer, “Kansas Man Pleads Guilty to Illegally Possessing Firearms,” Kansas City Star, October 29, 2009... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 April 12, 2013 Quote For example, according to Rick Warren, the gun his son just used to commit suicide was an unregistered gun, probably un-traceable because its serial number had been scratched off, he bought over the internet. a transaction in which numerous felonies were committed by both the buyer and seller. More laws aren't going to have any impact here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #87 April 12, 2013 QuoteQuote For example, according to Rick Warren, the gun his son just used to commit suicide was an unregistered gun, probably un-traceable because its serial number had been scratched off, he bought over the internet. a transaction in which numerous felonies were committed by both the buyer and seller. More laws aren't going to have any impact here. Maybe. It's an arms race, no pun intended. Background check laws do work, even if imperfectly. What that does is narrow the spout of the funnel, as it were. It makes it harder, possibly slower, and possibly more expensive, for felons and mentally ill people to get their weapons illegally. Some certainly will find ways to get around the hurdles by illegal means. Others may find it too daunting or expensive, while still others may be slowed-down, for whatever effect that has. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #88 April 12, 2013 Quote>no cold medication for you! I've driven after taking cold medication. I must be super human. Not real smart in these days and times to admit to taking anything that could impair your ability to operate anything. "Mr. Von Novak, surrender you DL because we have evidence that you drove after imbibing alcohol." - Oh, that will never happen!" -My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 April 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote For example, according to Rick Warren, the gun his son just used to commit suicide was an unregistered gun, probably un-traceable because its serial number had been scratched off, he bought over the internet. a transaction in which numerous felonies were committed by both the buyer and seller. More laws aren't going to have any impact here. Maybe. It's an arms race, no pun intended. Background check laws do work, even if imperfectly. What that does is narrow the spout of the funnel, as it were. It makes it harder, possibly slower, and possibly more expensive, for felons and mentally ill people to get their weapons illegally. Some certainly will find ways to get around the hurdles by illegal means. Others may find it too daunting or expensive, while still others may be slowed-down, for whatever effect that has. No, Andy. Background check laws don't work here. As a California resident, he was already beholden to use an FFL to receive the gun for him and to do the DROS and state checks/registrations. The seller was already beholden to ship to an FFL. And then there's the defaced serial number. It's felony to merely possess such a gun, let alone to deface it or to sell such a gun. This was a criminal transaction in every way. If this occurred as stated (and this seems fantastic - why go to this much trouble for a suicide?), there are no measures that would have prevented it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #90 April 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote For example, according to Rick Warren, the gun his son just used to commit suicide was an unregistered gun, probably un-traceable because its serial number had been scratched off, he bought over the internet. a transaction in which numerous felonies were committed by both the buyer and seller. More laws aren't going to have any impact here. Maybe. It's an arms race, no pun intended. Background check laws do work, even if imperfectly. What that does is narrow the spout of the funnel, as it were. It makes it harder, possibly slower, and possibly more expensive, for felons and mentally ill people to get their weapons illegally. Some certainly will find ways to get around the hurdles by illegal means. Others may find it too daunting or expensive, while still others may be slowed-down, for whatever effect that has. No, Andy. Background check laws don't work here. As a California resident, he was already beholden to use an FFL to receive the gun for him and to do the DROS and state checks/registrations. The seller was already beholden to ship to an FFL. And then there's the defaced serial number. It's felony to merely possess such a gun, let alone to deface it or to sell such a gun. This was a criminal transaction in every way. If this occurred as stated (and this seems fantastic - why go to this much trouble for a suicide?), there are no measures that would have prevented it. So you DO leave your doors wide open when you leave the house, because no lock is perfect. Got it!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 April 12, 2013 Quote So you DO leave your doors wide open when you leave the house, because no lock is perfect. Got it! how senile are you getting in your attempts to troll, John? The locks were there - the mandatory DROS check for California purchases, the mandatory use of an FFL to transfer a gun, the federal law against removing serial markings on weapons. That's 3 deadbolts already. Probably shipped the gun using an illegal method as well. So I'm at a loss to figure out which lock (law) you want to add to the equation that would have made any difference in preventing this illegal sale. More likely, you're just shooting the shit like always...enjoy. I'll have a life this weekend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #92 April 13, 2013 Quote>Are you talking private sale? Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement. Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example: For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction. For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred. (PC section 12072(d)) ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #93 April 13, 2013 Quote ny-gun-confiscation-underway-citizens-told-to-turn-in-pistol-owner-id-firearms/ That's good, they'll have to come to 118 suck me off Avenue to get mine. -Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #94 April 13, 2013 Quote Quote ny-gun-confiscation-underway-citizens-told-to-turn-in-pistol-owner-id-firearms/ That's good, they'll have to come to 118 suck me off Avenue to get mine. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Suck-Me-Off-Street/167418593289137 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #95 April 13, 2013 QuoteQuote So you DO leave your doors wide open when you leave the house, because no lock is perfect. Got it! how senile are you getting in your attempts to troll, John? The locks were there - the mandatory DROS check for California purchases, the mandatory use of an FFL to transfer a gun, the federal law against removing serial markings on weapons. That's 3 deadbolts already. Probably shipped the gun using an illegal method as well. So I'm at a loss to figure out which lock (law) you want to add to the equation that would have made any difference in preventing this illegal sale. More likely, you're just shooting the shit like always...enjoy. I'll have a life this weekend. But CA's back door is wide open. A FELON can (and has) been denied in CA and then gone to NV gun show to buy the weapon he subsequently used in a murder. No checks required of private sales at NV gun shows. I'm not senile, you are just blinded by your own prejudices. As long as there is no universal requirement for background checks, it's just like leaving your doors open and telling thieves "come in and help yourselves".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #96 April 13, 2013 Quote CA's back door is wide open. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #97 April 13, 2013 Quote Everyone in this country is against criminals and nutjobs having guns. The question is: how do you limit gun access to criminal and nutjobs. The answer is: you can't OK. I don't necessarily disagree with something you wrote for once! Where we do seem to disagree is that where I'm willing to give up some rights to ensure that the dangerous people don't have access to these weapons while you're not. In effect you're saying that you value your own wants in the ability to own a gun to take precedence over the known danger of allowing 'criminals and nutjobs' access. That seems profoundly selfish to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #98 April 13, 2013 QuoteIn effect you're saying that you value your own wants in the ability to own a gun to take precedence over the known danger of allowing 'criminals and nutjobs' access. That seems profoundly selfish to me. In effect you're saying that you don't want to take personal action to protect yourself or your kids enough to take away rights from citizens for an illusion of safety. That seems profoundly selfish to me.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #99 April 14, 2013 Quote Quote In effect you're saying that you value your own wants in the ability to own a gun to take precedence over the known danger of allowing 'criminals and nutjobs' access. That seems profoundly selfish to me. In effect you're saying that you don't want to take personal action to protect yourself or your kids enough to take away rights from citizens for an illusion of safety. That seems profoundly selfish to me.... Well, if we're playing that game... In effect you're saying that YOUR wishes to own guns that prevents us from stopping nutters and criminals and getting hold of them, FORCES me to have to take personal action to protect myself and my kids, thereby increasing the risk that criminals and nutters will get hold of them... we can't all be responsible gun owners like you, you know... STOP OPPRESSING ME! We could go round this all day... your turn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #100 April 14, 2013 Quote Quote Quote In effect you're saying that you value your own wants in the ability to own a gun to take precedence over the known danger of allowing 'criminals and nutjobs' access. That seems profoundly selfish to me. In effect you're saying that you don't want to take personal action to protect yourself or your kids enough to take away rights from citizens for an illusion of safety. That seems profoundly selfish to me.... Well, if we're playing that game... In effect you're saying that YOUR wishes to own guns that prevents us from stopping nutters and criminals and getting hold of them, FORCES me to have to take personal action to protect myself and my kids, thereby increasing the risk that criminals and nutters will get hold of them... we can't all be responsible gun owners like you, you know... STOP OPPRESSING ME! We could go round this all day... your turn. And the whole point is -- criminals and nutters will get guns regardless -- despite any non-constitutional new gun laws you impose on the vast majority of law-abiding citizens -- so nothing you seem prepared to do is going to stop mass shootings!If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
