Thanks to the GOP...

[jclalor 12]

It is now easier for a known terrorist to buy a gun in this country than it is for an American to vote. But, with their actual factual history of NOT protecting us from terrorists, we all might need a gun. (Ooops, I mentioned history and facts. Sorry Tea Party.)

[wolfriverjoe 1,456]

Define "known terrorist."

Someone on the watch list?
Someone charged with a crime?
Someone actually convicted?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rhaig 0]

I think he's referring to the no-fly list maybe.


Apparently due process isn't important to him.

--
Rob

[Elisha 1]

Yeah...voting is sooooo difficult. I have to actually walk all the way to the mail box, get the ballot out of the mail box, bring it into the house, then open the envelope, READ the ballot so I know what/whom I'm voting for, use an acceptable writing implement to mark the ballot, put the ballot into the envelope, remember to SIGN the envelope, even SEAL the envelope, and most difficult of all...remember to actually put the envelope back into the mail.

[1969912 0]

jclalor

It is now easier for a known terrorist to buy a gun in this country than it is for an American to vote. But, with their actual factual history of NOT protecting us from terrorists, we all might need a gun. (Ooops, I mentioned history and facts. Sorry Tea Party.)

You're full of shit.

"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

[cvfd1399 0]

[Coreeece 2]

jclalor

we all might need a gun.

Now that's the spirit!

Nice to see you guys finally coming around.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Texbubba 0]

They have no way of knowing whether they are coming or going.

[Texbubba 0]

Texbubba

The lefties have no way of knowing whether they are coming or going.

[propblast 0]

jclalor

It is now easier for a known terrorist to buy a gun in this country than it is for an American to vote. But, with their actual factual history of NOT protecting us from terrorists, we all might need a gun. (Ooops, I mentioned history and facts. Sorry Tea Party.)

Your completely illogical and unfactual post is FOS.

You can. It's in the national election without Id or could for years At a federal polling booth. You haven't been able to do that at a federal firearms dealer in decades.

I'm sure you will try to bring up some private sale nonsense which is outside the Argument of your origional post as it lacks government involvement.

Stop posting on emotion. For years I have awaited the day you grow up and actually get educated on this topic as you seem a smart guy. Sadly 2016 appears it will go as others.

Propblast

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'm sure you will try to bring up some private sale nonsense which is outside the Argument of your origional post as it lacks government involvement.

I think that's his point.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

I'm sure you will try to bring up some private sale nonsense which is outside the Argument of your origional post as it lacks government involvement.

I think that's his point.

Quote

It is now easier for a known terrorist to buy a gun in this country than it is for an American to vote. But, with their actual factual history of NOT protecting us from terrorists, we all might need a gun. (Ooops, I mentioned history and facts. Sorr

What part of the above is factual?

How is it easier for a known terrorist to buy a gun than for an Amwrican to vote?

What fact is that is that? Perhaps an emotion fact, incorrect as it is.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

I didn't say his post was factual. I said that I think part of his point is that private sales of guns are not controlled by the government. That is one way a criminal or terrorist can obtain a gun without the authorities being alerted. As I'm sure you know, many people wish to make background checks required for all gun transfers.

To the voting question, I believe the OP's point was the GOP is trying to make voting more difficult for many citizens, while making sure purchasing guns remains very simple.

I never said that I agree with his points, just clarifying what I thought his points were.

- Dan G

[RonD1120 58]

In my area, I established an agreement with a local fire arms dealer. If I sell a gun to an individual we go to the dealer. The dealer holds the money for the gun plus $20 to run the background check. When the buyer is cleared he gets the gun and I get the cash. If he is not cleared I get my gun back.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

I didn't say his post was factual. I said that I think part of his point is that private sales of guns are not controlled by the government. That is one way a criminal or terrorist can obtain a gun without the authorities being alerted. As I'm sure you know, many people wish to make background checks required for all gun transfers.

To the voting question, I believe the OP's point was the GOP is trying to make voting more difficult for many citizens, while making sure purchasing guns remains very simple.

I never said that I agree with his points, just clarifying what I thought his points were.

I understand. So the left should be outraged, that "private voting" doesn't require an ID. But they should be fine with ID check for public voting.

...
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

[normiss 721]

Outstanding!

IMO, this should be a requirement for all sales and transfers.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I understand. So the left should be outraged, that "private voting" doesn't require an ID. But they should be fine with ID check for public voting.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

To clarify my position, I think background checks should be extended to cover all gun transfers. It should be free, paid for by general taxes.

I also think it is okay to require ID for voting, but that ID must not only be free, but must be easily and cheaply obtainable. What constitutes ID for voting purposes should be very broadly defined. Those states and localities that require a specific type of ID, only obtainable at certain DMVs at certain hours, are clearly trying to prevent people from being able to vote.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

In my area, I established an agreement with a local fire arms dealer. If I sell a gun to an individual we go to the dealer. The dealer holds the money for the gun plus $20 to run the background check. When the buyer is cleared he gets the gun and I get the cash. If he is not cleared I get my gun back.

Sounds great. It should be required of all transfers. It should also be free, IMO, paid for by general taxes.

The background check should not have any connection to the firearm. It should merely sate whether or not Joe Blow is allowed to possess a firearm. There shouldn't be any tracability to the gun, or to the seller.

- Dan G

[normiss 721]

Excellent wording IMO.

[turtlespeed 212]

DanG

Quote

I understand. So the left should be outraged, that "private voting" doesn't require an ID. But they should be fine with ID check for public voting.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

To clarify my position, I think background checks should be extended to cover all gun transfers. It should be free, paid for by general taxes.

I also think it is okay to require ID for voting, but that ID must not only be free, but must be easily and cheaply obtainable. What constitutes ID for voting purposes should be very broadly defined. Those states and localities that require a specific type of ID, only obtainable at certain DMVs at certain hours, are clearly trying to prevent people from being able to vote.

Just have an rfid chip implanted then there is no issue.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Sounds great. It should be required of all transfers. It should also be free, IMO, paid for by general taxes.

The background check should not have any connection to the firearm. It should merely sate whether or not Joe Blow is allowed to possess a firearm. There shouldn't be any tracability to the gun, or to the seller.

"free" - "paid for by" maybe we just stop using the word 'free'

if it shouldn't have a connection to the firearm, but is used for "each transfer" is the tricky part (but I agree with the intent)

(If every time someone checked to see if I'm 'legal' then the system puts a tally mark, then gov knows how many guns I might own.....anything remotely looking like a 'registration' is not desired of course if we stay true to the intent of the 2nd) I agree a 'permit to purchase' is a good idea. Administering it in such a way that the individual is licensed to buy (clear proof of non-felon status - proof of training in safety, use, maintenance, storage and transport) - but not actually done such that the government has a list of what I own, or even how many I own - that's the tricky part.


I'd like the training to be 'free' - simple high school class. Then the permit just takes the training proof - does a felony check - and the permit is issued.

...
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

[DanG 1]

Quote

"free" - "paid for by" maybe we just stop using the word 'free'

Of course nothing's free. I meant free to the individual. Society in general should bear the cost, just like society in general should bear the cost of voting.

I'd be fine with a "cleared" card that is good for some finite length of time (a month or two). Some people could slip through the cracks, but it might ease fears that the government is keeping track of how many guns you own.

I'm not really clear on why it matters if the government thinks you own one gun or ten. When Obama comes to take our guns, he's going to take them all anyway, isn't he?

- Dan G

[normiss 721]

Way too many RFID security risks for that.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

Way too many RFID security risks for that.

It's the security issues you find wrong with that scenario, huh?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

I'd be fine with a "cleared" card that is good for some finite length of time (a month or two).

I'm on the other end. You are cleared until proven you aren't. no expiration. No regular or periodic fees, etc to keep your right. If the period is short, then it becomes a de facto intent to buy a firearm every time you renew or reapply, not a validation that you are responsible to exercise your rights as you see fit.

You get the permit. It's yours until it's taken away (for cause only). It's up to the system to identify violent felons (not hard, trigger the action when a "guilty" verdict is made). Then go take the card.

I don't see a reason for it to expire for no reason other than a couple months have passed.



As for caring if the gov knows how many, and what kind, etc of firearms one owns? I think that's obvious. Yes, President Obama, or President Hillary, or President Trump can't take all your guns if he doesn't know how many you have.

...
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