|
Post by minx on Sept 16, 2019 14:17:44 GMT -5
Better yet "I would make background checks, concealed carry requirements and guidelines for red flag laws uniform so gun owners do not have to wade through pages of confusing regulations. The last thing I want is to confiscate guns - we need to enforce the laws already on the books and make things more transparent so everyone knows what the law states"
Rinse and repeat, over and over. I have no interest in taking your guns. None.
Yeah, there are liberals who want to go house to house and take guns. And there are conservatives who want everything under the sun to be legal - why should they be prohibited from buying a rocket launcher to protect themselves?
Most people fall in the middle - start speaking to them. We want stronger background checks. We want clear requirements for who can carry concealed, and they should be universal. And we want red flag laws clearly spelled out.
Three things. Easy-peasy. Stop trying to pander to every person everywhere, and stick to the fucking basics that you know you can get passed.
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Sept 16, 2019 15:29:07 GMT -5
One other thing I support 100% is that all sales and transfers of firearms, including private transactions, be recorded and reported. Can be done online or a form can be mailed in. The idea of unregistered weapons and a way to trace them to their owner should be a thing of the past.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Sept 19, 2019 9:26:31 GMT -5
I think that banning guns, or instituting mandatory buyback programs is destined to fail. Just like prohibition, there will be a huge black market for those guns It will fail spectacularly, with maybe 1000 or 10000 dead cops and civilians on the 1st day of door-to-door confiscations. The general public will shoot back, as defending the 2nd Amendment is, for many of them, the continuation of an oath they once took to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Its an oath with no expiration date. If they really want to do what they profess to do, they need to repeal the 2nd Amendment first. No, we will either still have our guns, or we will be dead. "Cold dead hands" is not just a figure of speech in this situation. The concealed carry laws, along with all the rest of the gun control laws, need to be abolished. The criteria for carrying a weapon is that you own it, as in you didn't steal it. All the gun control laws, all 25,000 plus of them, have failed spectacularly, with probably more violence being perpetrated by bad guys than would be without them. The purpose of them is totally false, they aren't for reducing gun violence, they are for gaining control of the US population, leading to the confiscation that Democrats are talking about right now, and then eventual enslavement and genocides. The left is all about controlling you - force-feeding you their form of health care (nowhere near as good as you can buy), telling you to turn your thermostat down (Jimmy Carter), planning your living situation to preclude cars up to your property, so you have to carry the groceries for a block or 2, and other hair-brained crap I've seen proposed over the years. Their control has already been injurious with zoning precluding the walkable communities that they are trying to bring back with their screwball layouts that preclude cars to driveways, so now you have to get in the car to go to the store to get anything, rather than walking a few blocks to a convenience store that is now prohibited by zoning from being anywhere close. Like the New Jersey woman who waited on the state to approve her gun carry permit, but her ex or boyfriend or whoever it was they she wanted to defend herself from with the gun found her first, and killed her. No, no damned gun control laws at all. Those responsible will get the training the need (It should be taught in the public schools anyway), and those who are the bad guys won't. Nope. Expensive. And, it would preclude the blind from arming themselves. No, you don't need to be able to see to stick a gun in the ribs of someone who has grabbed you from behind, and filling his lungs full of lead. The blind should not be assumed to be defenseless. NRA already provides that. Control. MUST CONTROL EVERYONE. EVERYONE IS TOO STUPID TO DO THESE THINGS THEMSELVES. MUST HAVE BRILLIANT LIBERALS TO TELL THEM THEY MUST COMPLY. [/quote]So perhaps, applying for the gun, and in the intervening time, taking the class. If you decide after taking the class that a gun is not for you, you get the deposit back. And if you have taken and passed the course on one class of gun, you don't need to retake it again. So if I passed the handgun course, I would only have to take another course if I was contemplating a rifle.[/quote] And in the meantime, the person(s) you wanted the gun to defend against find(s) you and kill(s) you. Amazing. You got something right. The part you don't get it that it doesn't include interference by some self-appointed genius to take classes and fire weapons at their pleasure or wait for any reason. Yep. They can do that themselves, without interference from anyone else, tho.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Sept 19, 2019 9:34:30 GMT -5
So first thing off the bat, you fantasize lawless murder. If the law changes, instead of obeying the law, the murders begin. You sure do seem to hate America.
|
|
|
Post by minx on Sept 19, 2019 16:20:46 GMT -5
I understand that people can learn to use a gun on their own. People can also learn how to drive a vehicle on their own too. Yet we still make people demonstrate that they have the ability to handle a car. Regardless of whether it's your God-given right or not, I don't think it's unreasonable to have someone demonstrate that they at least understand how to load and fire a gun.
And interestingly enough, most of the red flag laws are being advocated for by survivors of domestic violence. It's almost as if they realize that getting a gun and trying to shoot their partner isn't going to solve their problems. Funny.
|
|
|
Post by k9krap on Sept 19, 2019 16:30:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Sept 19, 2019 16:35:02 GMT -5
I understand that people can learn to use a gun on their own. People can also learn how to drive a vehicle on their own too. Yet we still make people demonstrate that they have the ability to handle a car. Regardless of whether it's your God-given right or not, I don't think it's unreasonable to have someone demonstrate that they at least understand how to load and fire a gun. And interestingly enough, most of the red flag laws are being advocated for by survivors of domestic violence. It's almost as if they realize that getting a gun and trying to shoot their partner isn't going to solve their problems. Funny. If you can violate someone's 2nd Amendment constitutional rights by lying to authorities to get them to take his guns, then you can instead violate that person's constitutional rights by chasing him down and throwing him in the booby hatch. At least that isn't all that likely to result in a shootout, while announcing that you're here for his guns will most likely get you a shootout.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Sept 19, 2019 17:29:46 GMT -5
I never heard you object when stop and frisk is supported, including gun confiscation. That's two different rights your messiah wanted to see violated (I know, hard to believe there's any right other than having an inadequate weapon. Can you guess the other one?).
Now go yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Rights are unlimited, correct?
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Sept 19, 2019 21:48:27 GMT -5
I never heard you object when stop and frisk is supported, including gun confiscation. That's two different rights your messiah wanted to see violated (I know, hard to believe there's any right other than having an inadequate weapon. Can you guess the other one?). Now go yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Rights are unlimited, correct? Supreme Court says stop and frisk is legal. I'm not happy about confiscating guns, tho. If the person is supposedly not qualified to have a gun, then they should be locked up someplace where they really can't get one. That is, if their disqualification is so serious that they can't have a gun, then it's serious enough that they should be separated from society, either prison or hospital.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Sept 20, 2019 5:35:17 GMT -5
It's like you didn't even listen to Trump. That was what your Dear Leader said - take their guns. He gave no caveats (but you knew then he was speaking racism - take the guns from the ni**ers - are ni**ers "unqualified"?).
Also, SCOTUS put limits on stop and frisk, since it's a violation of the 4th amendment. As if there was any amendment other than the glorious and holy 2nd.
PS what do you mean unqualified? You think everyone should always have a gun, so nobody is "unqualified". Not even the hyperbolically feared "mentally ill", thanks to one of the first official actions from your Dear Leader. And if the cops can take guns from "unqualified" dude on street, they can say you are "unqualified". Maybe you aren't paranoid enough after all.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Sept 20, 2019 9:38:52 GMT -5
"PS what do you mean unqualified?"
Criminal, or criminally insane. The test is: If the law thinks that there's something wrong with them that they can't have a gun, then they can't be out walking around amongst everyone else, either, since they could instead stab, or run over with a car, or firebomb an object of their hate, or whatever. Either they are free citizens qualified to have a gun, or they are inside someplace and unable to hunt down and ex or a girlfriend and kill them.
IOW, I don't agree with this nonsense that you can't have a gun if you are a felon and have served your sentence. Used to be, you got out of prison and then could re-assume your full role in society, including having / carrying a gun. I think we should go back to that. We are way too hung up on removing guns from people as some kind of solution, when they are still free to attack citizens in a million other ways. If we can't trust them not to attack with a gun, then we can't trust them not to attack with a knife, run someone over with their car, push someone out a window, or even just beat the snot out of someone til they die, esp. if they're big and strong. Criminals are usually really strong anyway, they have to be to defend themselves in prison. Then they're strong when they get out, and can overpower most men their size, and all the women. They're trustworthy or they're not. Not trustworthy == keep 'em locked up.
And I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that one of the reasons that black folk are targeted by law enforcement is to get them in the status of having been a felon, so they can't have a gun. Stuff whites do that would get them non-felony convictions, the black is more likely to get a felony - then no gun for the rest of their lives. We should give it a rest just on racial equality basis.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Sept 20, 2019 10:46:31 GMT -5
rally is now woke, at 1950 standard.
|
|
|
Post by minx on Sept 20, 2019 12:53:23 GMT -5
You can be sarcastic all you want, but Rally does have a point on ex-convicts. If we're going to release you from jail and say you've served your sentence, shouldn't we in effect be wiping the slate and giving you a fresh start? So, you should have rights restored, such as being able to vote, hold a job without having to announce that you're a former convict before applying, and yes own a gun.
If for some reason, those rights should be restricted (you can't have contact with children, you need to report for random drug tests for a year, can't work in a specific industry), then those should be imposed at sentencing. Because either you were rehabilitated in prison (or learned your lesson) or you weren't. If you were, then you should be free to return as a full member of society. If not, then you shouldn't be released.
And I also think we need to re-do all of our sentencing laws. Enough of the 2 years in prison with 3 years suspended crap. Either you belong in prison for 5 years, or you only should be there for 2. Saying 5 years with 3 suspended allows prosecutors and judges to appear to be tough on crime without doing shit.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Sept 20, 2019 13:19:41 GMT -5
I didn't say he was wrong, just decades slow in catching up. Maybe he can look up Jim Crow and felony disenfranchisement - if you can have a gun, you can have a vote.
Note too that that realization is in service of putting more bullets into people.
ETA: our prisons don't DO rehab, they punish. I'll drag Larry here for his solution of more and longer prison sentences, in the country that's so free we imprison a greater proportion of our citizens than ANY other.
|
|