gun law reform... please!

budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
Dr Kynes said:
shit's changed now. you cant sell a gun buy a gun or "transfer" a gun (turn over a firearm to the custody or ownership of anyone else, even your direct kin when you are dead) to anybody else without going through a gun dealer filling out the "necessary forms" (request for permission) and waiting between 7 and 14 days for the request to be authorized. in breif, the second ammendment only counts if you submit to interrogation and prove your loyalty with a penis inspection and anal swab.
Click to expand...
Ummm, without paperwork (as in grandfathered guns), it's cash and carry.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
Mr Neutron said:
Well, I've been out of the game for a couple years, so I can't argue your point but I find it hard to believe that is the case with sales of personal firearms.
Click to expand...
TECHNICALLY, in Cali at least, you are SUPPOSED to file transfer paperwork even on private sales. That being said, i can only remember seeing it done twice.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
1. We alone are responsible for our own protection
2. the government cannot be charged with protecting fetuses from their mothers or their mother's doctors.
Click to expand...
1. Couldn't agree with you more, police are around for the sole purpose of catching your murderer, not preventing your murder.

2. True, sort of. If they had a mind to do so, they could protect fetuses with a deterrent in the same way they try to prevent murder. Jail sentences after the fact. Not saying they should, but they certainly could. The fear of prosecution is the government's method of choice to discourage any course of action that they wish to prevent. Guaranteed prosecution of the doctor would seal the deal.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
Dr Kynes said:
thats the new form you have to fill out swear to and sign before the BATF will permit you the privilege of buying a firearm. after a sufficient waiting period to allow them an opportunity to refuse your request for permission to buy a gun.

thats whythe smart money buys their new guns on the low-low. the BATF can eat a dick.

those who are unfortunate enough to be too young to have acquired their firearms before the inquisition began are gonna have to wait till their gramps dies and passes down a few heaters.
Click to expand...
while it is complete bullshit and I totally agree....it is not as bad as you think and still very easy to buy guns legally using that exact form (and the other miriad of forms and visits to the sherrif). I have done it myself its really not THAT bad.

It most certainly does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and its fucking retarded justification to steal money from good people, don't get me wrong but its not THAT bad.
 
smokinpauly

smokinpauly

Well-Known Member
its just fucked up man.. if they take the guns from the good guys, guess what? only the bad guys will have them. its all bullshit i tell ya. how many felons walk into a gun shop and buy a gun? fuckin zero. there will always be dirty guns on the street, and if they have them and we dont the crime rate will sky rocket.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
canndo said:
9/11 was a battle, the single battle terrorism ever won in their declared war on the U.S.
The single battle terrorism won? Really? A Battle?
Really don't understand where your coming from.


there was recently a poll here that asked if people were still frightened by terrorists - most said no.
Thank you.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the only time the American people were frightened by terrorists was when we had leaders that needed us to be fearful in order for them to accomplish their agenda. TRUTH! Note that this current administration has no need for that same frightened citizenry and lo and behold, we are no longer frightened. Your joking right?

What you are maintaing is that a loosely organized population that is armed with a vast assortment of irregular weapons from blunderbusses to mock "assault weapons" is capable of taking on the most sophisticated and powerful military ever assembled. You really think so? Our country is still capable of a prolonged two theater war, and you actually believe that some ad hoc militia could take it on? Maybe The question is, would our military follow orders or refuse to fight our own citizens. Many if not most of them would I believe, However, it depends on the scenario, this would only happen in a scenario which this is unlikley.

I submit that our military is well enough trained that it will follow orders first. We see evidence of that same military following orders to torture, we see that they have been used in riots (and this is only the state militia). Times have changed, your weapons won't do you a lick of good in the next revolution the gun toters are so anxious to start. I don't know you really aren't consider guriella tactics and also sheer numbers, I mean look at vietnam, plus there would be a lot that wouldn't follow orders regardless. At the least it would be never ending. All they could hope for is endless civil war and obviously couldnt sustain that.
Click to expand...
See comments in red
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
canndo said:
Drama, I am arguing specifics, we both agree that the 2nd amendment means what it seems to mean and I really don't care if one hundred times the number of firearms related deaths occured, If it says that we have a right to keep and bear then the dead are the cost of doing business in America. If it ever got too bad we could find some other solution than to confiscate everyone's firearms.

the key to this is a little known ruling by the Supreme Court that says that the government is not, repeat NOT responsible or liable for one citizen harming or killing another. Many of us liberals believe otherwise, when he reasonable of us realize that the state has no real obligation to protect one citizen from another two things become strikingly clear.

1. We alone are responsible for our own protection
2. the government cannot be charged with protecting fetuses from their mothers or their mother's doctors.

That is all that needs to be said.
Click to expand...
Pretty sad it takes the supreme court to get people to realize:
1. We alone are responsible for our own protection

No Shit!

Police and government don't have magic powers. They will not stop someone from robbing or killing you ever. I would like to know along with those figures, how many people actuallly were saved by Police, it would be less than the shark deaths.

Most poor people learn that when they are like 12 - shows most "liberals" are fucking spoiled yuppies who think they are being compassionate when they vote for coersive force to be used by a morally unaccountable supreme authority against people for the sake of some fucking 'cause'. Pure fucking unsympathic non-compassionate lazyness if you ask me. Come join us on earth you sheltered egomaniacs, Today's "Liberals" are just as bad as the Republicans.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Gays want to get married and the right does not what them to do so. Simple as that.What rights conservatives want taken from women? The right to do as they please with their own body and the right to have their health concerns be between themselves and their Doctor.

The rest is changing the subject Beenthere, this was not about taxes or your conjecture about liberal behavior "if it were left up to liberals".

Your new "right" to carry firearms in national parks happens to be a right that this president "gave" you.

Show me some proof Beenthere, that this government "does" fear our firearms.
Click to expand...
Natural rights to defend oneself are not bestowed by Super Mommies or daddies. NO right is bestowed by government, they can only infringe on them or yield to them.
 
budlover13

budlover13

King Tut
deprave said:
Your always supposed to do this in Michigan...Kynes is right.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are SUPPOSED to do this but if there is a grandfathered gun that has no original paper trail, how many people do you think are going to be willing to start one? Not many in my experience.
 
BA142

BA142

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty liberal on social issues but banning guns is like banning drugs. There will always be a black market.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
shit's changed now. you cant sell a gun buy a gun or "transfer" a gun (turn over a firearm to the custody or ownership of anyone else, even your direct kin when you are dead) to anybody else without going through a gun dealer filling out the "necessary forms" (request for permission) and waiting between 7 and 14 days for the request to be authorized. in breif, the second ammendment only counts if you submit to interrogation and prove your loyalty with a penis inspection and anal swab.
Click to expand...
Just in California, some people might be confused and think a waiting period and all that paperwork applied to other states also, it does not. You pass the Instant background check and properly fill out the paperwork and they cannot deny it in most states that I am aware of (not Illinois).
 
MellowFarmer

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
M B P said:
So... new mass shooting in the US today. This one at a Sheik temple. It appears that some red neck thought they were Muslims (not that it would have been ok if they were). Is anyone else sick of this?
/
Media, on both sides, is making sure that we all hate each other. Its getting worse. We are no longer a society that is capable of being civil. Its time to do something about guns. I'm not saying we need to get rid of guns. But something has to be done. This clearly isn't working.
Click to expand...
The only gun reform we need is to reform the law back to the right of Every Citizen yup even those Scary Felons to bear as many arms as they want because although a shotgun or even an uzi wouldn't stand a chance against Big CorpGov(like that? I just make it up :bigjoint: ) who knows maybe the computers on their drones will malfunction and we have a fighting chance?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
the "little known ruling" you reference was the case of a woman raped and murdered by a gang right in front of two cops on a stakeout. they didnt even call in uniforms to protect their "investigation" of a guy who sold weed and coke.

so yes. the government has no obligation to protect anyone, which is why we now have "lawer inforcemint offisers" instead of police,, and peace officers. Plato would be ashamed of the way his fictional "Republic" is taking shape.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe the case involved a mother and her children having been taken by an estranged husband. The Mom insisted that the police were responsible for the safety of the Children because they promised that the father who had threatened some act of violence would remain in jail yet was released.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
i guess we agree to disagree.

Vehemently.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in the term. in most situations there is one person that is closer to being right and one person that is closer to being wrong. Agreeing to disagree is simply this: "well I am going to believe what I do regardless of what evidence, fact or logic you put before me" . This is akin to "I will believe that to my grave" or "You will never convince me otherwise". These statements are not the sentiments of people who are truely interested in reality.
 
MellowFarmer

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
I don't believe in the term. in most situations there is one person that is closer to being right and one person that is closer to being wrong. Agreeing to disagree is simply this: "well I am going to believe what I do regardless of what evidence, fact or logic you put before me" . This is akin to "I will believe that to my grave" or "You will never convince me otherwise". These statements are not the sentiments of people who are truely interested in reality.
Click to expand...
Really? so aspirin is safer and more appropriate to use for arthritis, headaches blah blah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top