(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  A reasonable person wouldn't mention liberal protesters in response to my post, because they have absolutely nothing to do with it. That is unreasonable, and silly, and indicative of a knee-jerk 'us-vs-them' mentality that I find inexcusable in politics. Just a pet peeve.

It would be like me mentioning the WBC in this post, they have nothing to do with anything,

Were you being reasonable when you called the point they were trying to make "asinine" instead of calmly saying you disagreed with it?

I mentioned liberal protests because I don't ever recall you calling their actions asinine, despite the fact that they are often protesting or demonstrating for causes much less important than the defense of a Constitutional right.

I've called all sorts of liberal protests asinine, or worse. The Black Lives Matter people interrupting Sanders were asinine and idiotic. Many of the people who protested against the 1% did so in an asinine and idiotic manner.

But I mentioned it in the threads about those issues, where they were pertinent, unlike your vague comment about 'liberal protesters'. You're just doing more of it, this isn't a team sport, it's our society, let's stop acting like the former and more like the latter. How about it?

Then you should have taken your own advice and just agreed with me.

This sort of 'team sport' mentality only goes away when people are aware at how ubiquitous it is. I'm not exactly sure how you think this response is warranted given my posts, I'm responding directly to the comments you posted?

Just be better than the lowest common denominator, we need that on both sides.

You could have simply said "you're right" when I commented on liberal protesters and demonstrators doing idiotic things too. It would have been a nice gesture.

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:31 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are about to go on a shooting spree. Whenever you figure out a way to do that, let us know.

Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

(08-28-2015 10:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Were you being reasonable when you called the point they were trying to make "asinine" instead of calmly saying you disagreed with it?

I mentioned liberal protests because I don't ever recall you calling their actions asinine, despite the fact that they are often protesting or demonstrating for causes much less important than the defense of a Constitutional right.

I've called all sorts of liberal protests asinine, or worse. The Black Lives Matter people interrupting Sanders were asinine and idiotic. Many of the people who protested against the 1% did so in an asinine and idiotic manner.

But I mentioned it in the threads about those issues, where they were pertinent, unlike your vague comment about 'liberal protesters'. You're just doing more of it, this isn't a team sport, it's our society, let's stop acting like the former and more like the latter. How about it?

Then you should have taken your own advice and just agreed with me.

This sort of 'team sport' mentality only goes away when people are aware at how ubiquitous it is. I'm not exactly sure how you think this response is warranted given my posts, I'm responding directly to the comments you posted?

Just be better than the lowest common denominator, we need that on both sides.

You could have simply said "you're right" when I commented on liberal protesters and demonstrators doing idiotic things too. It would have been a nice gesture.

But then I would only be perpetuating your belief that bringing up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand in a sort of tit-for-tat manner is valid, and that goes against my entire argument. I want to stop that sort of silly behavior, not reward it.

I'm only responding to claims you've explicitly made, and I'm only asking you to do the same to me, why is this sort of request resulting in anything but a "Fair enough" on your end?

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:31 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

Handguns ad class 3 firearms yes.... and it already happens that way. That's my problem with your post. You don't fully understand the way the process currently works, especially with regard to gun shows.

(08-28-2015 10:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:31 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

Handguns ad class 3 firearms yes.... and it already happens that way. That's my problem with your post. You don't fully understand the way the process currently works, especially with regard to gun shows.

Private sales section of gun shows? No records, no oversight. Actually the gun nuts just passed legislation making it illegal to film what was going on at the shows, because gun control advocates were having a field day showing all kinds of rampant abuse. And these weren't O'Keefe/Breitbart stunts, but real tests of the system.

(08-28-2015 10:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I've called all sorts of liberal protests asinine, or worse. The Black Lives Matter people interrupting Sanders were asinine and idiotic. Many of the people who protested against the 1% did so in an asinine and idiotic manner.

But I mentioned it in the threads about those issues, where they were pertinent, unlike your vague comment about 'liberal protesters'. You're just doing more of it, this isn't a team sport, it's our society, let's stop acting like the former and more like the latter. How about it?

Then you should have taken your own advice and just agreed with me.

This sort of 'team sport' mentality only goes away when people are aware at how ubiquitous it is. I'm not exactly sure how you think this response is warranted given my posts, I'm responding directly to the comments you posted?

Just be better than the lowest common denominator, we need that on both sides.

You could have simply said "you're right" when I commented on liberal protesters and demonstrators doing idiotic things too. It would have been a nice gesture.

But then I would only be perpetuating your belief that bringing up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand in a sort of tit-for-tat manner is valid, and that goes against my entire argument. I want to stop that sort of silly behavior, not reward it.

I'm only responding to claims you've explicitly made, and I'm only asking you to do the same to me, why is this sort of request resulting in anything but a "Fair enough" on your end?

Because that's not the way the other side plays. I'm not going to 'lay down my arms' and agree to play nice when others wont. Don't like it, don't respond to my posts.

(08-28-2015 10:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Then you should have taken your own advice and just agreed with me.

This sort of 'team sport' mentality only goes away when people are aware at how ubiquitous it is. I'm not exactly sure how you think this response is warranted given my posts, I'm responding directly to the comments you posted?

Just be better than the lowest common denominator, we need that on both sides.

You could have simply said "you're right" when I commented on liberal protesters and demonstrators doing idiotic things too. It would have been a nice gesture.

But then I would only be perpetuating your belief that bringing up things that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand in a sort of tit-for-tat manner is valid, and that goes against my entire argument. I want to stop that sort of silly behavior, not reward it.

I'm only responding to claims you've explicitly made, and I'm only asking you to do the same to me, why is this sort of request resulting in anything but a "Fair enough" on your end?

Because that's not the way the other side plays. I'm not going to 'lay down my arms' and agree to play nice when others wont. Don't like it, don't respond to my posts.

I literally am the other side in this argument, you're not discussing this with anyone else but me. Stop treating politics like a team sport, please, and discuss only what's written.

The only law that was broken in this situation was the committing Murder in the First Degree and Attempted Murder. Very sad but no other laws were broken, so there is ultimately nothing to "fix".

(08-28-2015 10:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

Handguns ad class 3 firearms yes.... and it already happens that way. That's my problem with your post. You don't fully understand the way the process currently works, especially with regard to gun shows.

Private sales section of gun shows? No records, no oversight. Actually the gun nuts just passed legislation making it illegal to film what was going on at the shows, because gun control advocates were having a field day showing all kinds of rampant abuse. And these weren't O'Keefe/Breitbart stunts, but real tests of the system.

[quote]Since every gun show takes place entirely within the boundaries of a single state, Congress has no legitimate constitutional basis, under its “interstate commerce” power, to attempt to control gun shows.[\quote]http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...-gun-shows
It's an old link, but still tells you what you refuse to know or understand.

There is no requirement for an individual conducting a private sale to get a background check for a long gun at a gun show. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are done through licensed dealers which do the background check anyway. All handgun transactions go through a background check unless the purchaser has a concealed carry license (per state) or handgun purchase permit.


You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

(08-28-2015 10:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  [quote='200yrs2late' pid='12305068' dateline='1440774484']

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

Handguns ad class 3 firearms yes.... and it already happens that way. That's my problem with your post. You don't fully understand the way the process currently works, especially with regard to gun shows.

Private sales section of gun shows? No records, no oversight. Actually the gun nuts just passed legislation making it illegal to film what was going on at the shows, because gun control advocates were having a field day showing all kinds of rampant abuse. And these weren't O'Keefe/Breitbart stunts, but real tests of the system.

Quote:Since every gun show takes place entirely within the boundaries of a single state, Congress has no legitimate constitutional basis, under its “interstate commerce” power, to attempt to control gun shows.[\quote]http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...-gun-shows
It's an old link, but still tells you what you refuse to know or understand.

There is no requirement for an individual conducting a private sale to get a background check for a long gun at a gun show. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are done through licensed dealers which do the background check anyway. All handgun transactions go through a background check unless the purchaser has a concealed carry license (per state) or handgun purchase permit.


You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

And since all grocery store purchases take place within the boundaries of a single state, then I suppose there can be no regulation of grocery stores either. Silly CATO.

In Texas you can purchase all the assault rifles you want, no questions asked. If you're insane...no problem go to the private sales section. Gang member/felon...same thing. And its now illegal to film in a gun show...wonder why?

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:31 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

BS. I own guns and the "government" does not nor can they track me or my guns. I can sell a gun to my buddy who lives down street, without government approval...............just like a car or a lamp.

You just don't like people who own guns and go to the flea market gun show.
Why don't you focus on criminals and not sportsman and collectors.

You want a gun owner, whose house gets broken into...guns stolen, the criminal then kills someone that gun..............to go to jail as opposed to the criminal murderer. Why don't you focus on the gang banging drug dealers who commit most of the murders in the USA.

(08-28-2015 06:56 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:21 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  How does a Constitutional Right equate to paranoia in your world ?

I have a constitutional right to go out and spread hate speech too. Doesn't mean I'm gonna do it.

Apples and oranges with that type of argument. Hate speech is evil, whereas carrying an inanimate object is not.

(08-28-2015 11:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  [quote='200yrs2late' pid='12305068' dateline='1440774484']

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

Handguns ad class 3 firearms yes.... and it already happens that way. That's my problem with your post. You don't fully understand the way the process currently works, especially with regard to gun shows.

Private sales section of gun shows? No records, no oversight. Actually the gun nuts just passed legislation making it illegal to film what was going on at the shows, because gun control advocates were having a field day showing all kinds of rampant abuse. And these weren't O'Keefe/Breitbart stunts, but real tests of the system.

Quote:Since every gun show takes place entirely within the boundaries of a single state, Congress has no legitimate constitutional basis, under its “interstate commerce” power, to attempt to control gun shows.[\quote]http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...-gun-shows
It's an old link, but still tells you what you refuse to know or understand.

There is no requirement for an individual conducting a private sale to get a background check for a long gun at a gun show. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are done through licensed dealers which do the background check anyway. All handgun transactions go through a background check unless the purchaser has a concealed carry license (per state) or handgun purchase permit.


You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

And since all grocery store purchases take place within the boundaries of a single state, then I suppose there can be no regulation of grocery stores either. Silly CATO.

In Texas you can purchase all the assault rifles you want, no questions asked. If you're insane...no problem go to the private sales section. Gang member/felon...same thing. And its now illegal to film in a gun show...wonder why?

How many murders have been committed with an "assault rifle " or just plain long guns? Fewer than 3% of ALL firearm deaths.

Gang bangers aren't purchasing a $600-$1,200 weapon. Just shows your ignorance on the topic.

(08-28-2015 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:08 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:31 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Under the authority of the police. Should they wear brownshirts

Why would they do that? Everything above I suggested is 100% constitutional.

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

BS. I own guns and the "government" does not nor can they track me or my guns. I can sell a gun to my buddy who lives down street, without government approval...............just like a car or a lamp.

You just don't like people who own guns and go to the flea market gun show.
Why don't you focus on criminals and not sportsman and collectors.

You want a gun owner, whose house gets broken into...guns stolen, the criminal then kills someone that gun..............to go to jail as opposed to the criminal murderer. Why don't you focus on the gang banging drug dealers who commit most of the murders in the USA.

But Remember Those Criminals were persecuted folks by the Evil Establishment and They need these things You have more than You do. Distribution of Your Wealth. You can't have a weapon to take that right away from Them.

(08-28-2015 11:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  [quote='200yrs2late' pid='12305068' dateline='1440774484']

Other than shutting down gun shows and the transfer of long guns without police overight, you haven't suggested anything that isn't already taking place.

The government has no Constitutional right to limit the legal show and sell of any good. Nor do they have the Constitutional right to track and manage law abiding citizens as you said in another post.

Actually they do have the right to say "no sales or purchases of weapons without police oversight" and "no private sales unless vetted by the police" (which would end the gun show loophole - and with it - most gun shows). They do have the right to track the guns...and track who they're registered to.

If they make you go to the police station and have your criminal history run prior to conducting a legal sale/puchase of a firearm, there's no violation of your rights. If the government knows where the guns are and who is supposed be responsible for them, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes you criminally or civilly liable if your negligence causes the gun to be stolen by a criminal (not secured), handled by child, etc. and there's injuries/death/damage, there's no violation of your rights. If the government makes the dealers of guns strictly responsible for any mistakes they commit in the proliferation of firearms, there's no violation of your rights.

None of that prevents you from getting a gun. Its just that the police will know you have it (which is a safety issue for them - on traffic stops/domestic violence calls, etc.). None of that prevents you from selling a gun (unless you want to sell to the insane or a gangster/felon). But it does make you take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your decision to have a firearm.

Handguns ad class 3 firearms yes.... and it already happens that way. That's my problem with your post. You don't fully understand the way the process currently works, especially with regard to gun shows.

Private sales section of gun shows? No records, no oversight. Actually the gun nuts just passed legislation making it illegal to film what was going on at the shows, because gun control advocates were having a field day showing all kinds of rampant abuse. And these weren't O'Keefe/Breitbart stunts, but real tests of the system.

Quote:Since every gun show takes place entirely within the boundaries of a single state, Congress has no legitimate constitutional basis, under its “interstate commerce” power, to attempt to control gun shows.[\quote]http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...-gun-shows
It's an old link, but still tells you what you refuse to know or understand.

There is no requirement for an individual conducting a private sale to get a background check for a long gun at a gun show. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are done through licensed dealers which do the background check anyway. All handgun transactions go through a background check unless the purchaser has a concealed carry license (per state) or handgun purchase permit.


You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

And since all grocery store purchases take place within the boundaries of a single state, then I suppose there can be no regulation of grocery stores either. Silly CATO.

In Texas you can purchase all the assault rifles you want, no questions asked. If you're insane...no problem go to the private sales section. Gang member/felon...same thing. And its now illegal to film in a gun show...wonder why?

Just how are grocery stores federally regulated?

This is what is so awesome about Wal Mart, you can buy groceries and guns under 1 roof. Lazy Tom hates Wal Mart also.

(08-28-2015 08:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA.

How many are with legally obtained guns

Quote:As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate

Except Guns are not proliferating



They are just about where they have been for 30 years.

I have a hard time believing there is a mass shooting everyday. Tom, source that please.

Per the Washington Post yesterday, "Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year."

Yes. Both by CRIMINALS with guns. NOT the generally law abiding CC folks. Start to post some of the statistics showing that the expansion of open carry or concealed carry with permit has led to an increase in criminal activity by those people, using their weapons, and maybe we can have a discussion.

If you two gun grabbers are instead arguing that criminals with guns are acting as...... criminals with guns, well then Hi-Hay whoopty Ay!

We've broken new ground here!

(08-28-2015 11:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This is what is so awesome about Wal Mart, you can buy groceries and guns under 1 roof. Lazy Tom hates Wal Mart also.

Like Most Liberals do.

(08-28-2015 11:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This is what is so awesome about Wal Mart, you can buy groceries and guns under 1 roof. Lazy Tom hates Wal Mart also.

I love Walmart for this reason exactly. I enjoy cruising by the gun area and dropping stuff loudly on purpose just to see people's reaction. Gun advocates are so jumpy.

(08-28-2015 11:49 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  This is what is so awesome about Wal Mart, you can buy groceries and guns under 1 roof. Lazy Tom hates Wal Mart also.

Like Most Liberals do.

I hate wal-mart for the fact their stores are always poorly run and lines are always long. I'd rather pay a few bucks more and support a business which has a business model I agree with more, and has better employees and service, like Costco and Publix.