to be clear, i think that liberty and the Bill of Rights can be restored without violent revolution

2/20/2013 12:41:30 PM

Quote :

"see, its a terrible justification for keeping a gun because no one will ever actually use it for that"

as i said several pages ago, if we hadn't already cut the balls off 2A by turning our well-regulated militias into federal troops, this would be false

thankfully, SCOTUS had to say that 2A protects an individual RKBA b/c if it doesn't apply to individuals and it doesn't allow militias to have arms on par with our huge standing army, wtf does it do?

2/20/2013 12:46:31 PM

Hiro is using it as his justification (which is different than the Supreme Court's btw), so if that's the reason I would like him to tell me at what point that would be necessary, what is the line in the sand?

2/20/2013 12:46:42 PM

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495

i've posted this several times, but i sincerely ask that folks read it

settledown, i agree with you that it's absolutely disgusting that so many pro-2A people remain silent when the rest of the Bill of Rights is trampled. it's a product of this red vs. blue game that the govt wants us to play.

2/20/2013 12:52:11 PM

I for one, believe this strongly in all the constitutional amendments, even more so than many of you, those of you who so liberally believe in "reasonable" limitations of freedoms or "reasonable" expansions of government power and scope.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2013 1:00:28 PM

We all know that you understand the constitution better than the Supreme Court

2/20/2013 1:09:22 PM

^^Yeah cause fuck The Civil Rights Act, amirite?

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM. Reason : not quick]

2/20/2013 1:09:48 PM

the problem is the so-called freedom lovers at RKBA rallies who argue against things like gay marriage or who supported the PATRIOT Act, etc.

they're no better than the gun grabbers

2/20/2013 1:10:28 PM

^^^ah yes, a panel of bought and paid for, politically motivated politicians appointed to oversee decisions on a document written over 200 years ago are surely the only people we can trust to interpret said document
^^wat

2/20/2013 1:11:47 PM

I was assuming The Civil Rights Act was a good example of " "reasonable" limitations of freedoms or "reasonable" expansions of government power and scope" that we "so liberally believe in" that aren't explicitly laid out in the US Constitution.

2/20/2013 1:16:36 PM

good assumption, brah. typical bullshit from you; I don't know anything, so I'll just make up shit!

2/20/2013 1:18:21 PM

It's only the quintessential "states rights" issue in Modern American history, that's all.

So are you saying it was Constitutional and a reasonable expansion of Government Power to regulate what businesses can and cannot do at a Federal level?

2/20/2013 1:21:01 PM

Quote :

"the problem is the so-called freedom lovers at RKBA rallies who argue against things like gay marriage or who supported the PATRIOT Act, etc. they're no better than the gun grabbers"

Spoken For the Mother Fucking Truth.

i'm soo sick of that

2/20/2013 2:23:26 PM

I am so sick of this hating on big government. It's just a bunchy of whiney kids upset at Mom and Dad.

2/20/2013 10:58:28 PM

^some parents are abusive alcoholics

2/21/2013 6:59:27 AM

Quote :

" ^^^ah yes, a panel of bought and paid for, politically motivated politicians appointed to oversee decisions on a document written over 200 years ago are surely the only people we can trust to interpret said document"

This system you accuse of being corrupt was established by... The Constitution.

Slavery and blacks being 3/5 of a person is also in the Constitution.

Maybe we shouldn't suck it's dick so much.

2/21/2013 7:45:49 AM

Or we act like responsible adults and amend it in the process that was laid out to do so.

2/21/2013 9:00:38 AM

^ a prohibitively onerous process today. Another way it sucks.

But since we have to live with it, easier to interpret it in a way that makes sense in the modern world rather than try to guess what a bunch of men thought in 1787 -- while no doubt the smartest and bravest men of their day, also thought it was cool to rape their own child slaves.

2/21/2013 9:29:01 AM

^^^your assumption that I have a problem with the entity of the supreme court is horribly false. I have a problem with who and how gets appointed; their influence and impacts on society, and the huge amount of power that has shifted to the supreme court. No one is pretending that the Constitution is perfect; thus there is a way to change it.

2/21/2013 9:54:46 AM

so you do have a problem with the Constitution

... because that's where it says who appoints judges

2/21/2013 10:13:20 AM

2/21/2013 10:26:34 AM

I was just looking on Piers Morgan website, because he's supposedly going to be interviewing "Genius"Boy at his pizza joint,



and I came across this from Willie Nelson

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/26/willie-nelson-on-the-arms-debate-a-lot-of-guns-theres-no-need-for-civilians-to-own-those-those-are-for-military/?hpt=pm_t4

[Edited on February 21, 2013 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2013 1:24:26 PM

So in a weird twisted way, did Geniusxboy just win The Soap Box?

Does Piers Morgan have any dirt on him?

2/21/2013 3:42:52 PM

Whoah, I just realized today that the constitution was basically designed to set in place a dysfunctional goverment.

That blew my mind.

2/21/2013 7:00:49 PM

2/21/2013 9:17:04 PM

at least OopsPowSrprs is upfront enough to come right out and disclose his disdain for the Constitution and willingness to just ignore it.

I think that's insane, but it's somehow less frustrating than the majority who come out with a bunch of weasel words and fluffy statements about living documents and general welfare and shit, when the cold reality is that they don't give even the slightest fuck about the Constitution or rule of law, and are perfectly happy to completely ignore it when it doesn't suit them (although they do appeal do it when some other fuckhead ignores it toward an end they disagree with).

2/21/2013 10:32:35 PM

This may have been discussed before, but is it not fucked up that I can go buy a gun from a dealer, and then legally sell it to a convicted felon here in VA? I know there's a fear of government confiscating all the guns whenever Obama decides to proceed with his imminent transition to dictatorship, but other than that, why are law-abiding citizens are so against mandatory government sanctioning of private gun sales, combined with mandatory background checks? I doubt most of the guns of black market are Cold War leftovers from the Ruskis. I imagine the market is full of legally sold guns from law-abiding citizens who needed some cash and sold their guns without asking the buyer any questions. Correct me if that's not the case and there is some system that would prevent me from doing so.

2/22/2013 12:46:55 AM

Quote :

"...is it not fucked up that I can go buy a gun from a dealer, and then legally sell it to a convicted felon here in VA?"

A convicted felon cannot legally purchase a firearm, private or otherwise. They cannot own a firearm legally. So it would be illegal for you to sell a firearm to a convicted fellon.

Quote :

"sold their guns without asking the buyer any questions"

There are forms out there that disclose that the seller is not a convicted fellon. That won't stop people from lying... The requirement of a pistol permit or conceal carry license also helps deter selling to convicted felons in private party sales.

Long guns is another story...

As it stands, it is not hard for a convicted felon to obtain a long gun (rifle or shotgun) via a private party sale. It may be more difficult to do this with a pistol, however, I'm sure there are (unfortunately) less than educated sellers who would sell the gun without thinking legally about who it's being sold to.


[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 4:20 AM. Reason : .]

2/22/2013 4:14:59 AM

Quote :

"What are the laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? To privately sell a firearm, it is recommended that you safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun must be a resident of the state in which the transfer occurs. Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual."

Doesn't say shit about having to check anyone's credentials even when selling handguns. It may be illegal for them to own a firearm, but I don't see how it's illegal for me to sell it to them if I don't know that they are a felon and the government doesn't require me to check their background. They "recommend" writing down the information about the firearm and the name/address of the buyer, but it does not require me to. Worse yet, what keeps me from making it a little side business to buy guns and re-sell them to pricate parties, no questions asked, if no one is tracking how many firearms I bought and who i sold them to? Please tell me that someone, in some agency keeps a tally of how many firearms did one individual purchased from a licensed dealer each year. And if they do, is there a particular number i need to buy before it triggers some sort of an alarm?

2/22/2013 4:28:52 AM

the only reason i am against a background check for every private sale is that it creates a registry and that is the first step to confiscation.

2/22/2013 5:18:07 AM

But if you at any point bought a firearm through a gun dealer, there is already a record of you owning a firearm, no? So the only people who would be affected by universal background check are those currently buying firearms solely "under the radar" for one reason or another. So the slightly far-fetched fear of government confiscating your weapons is causing much more real problem of criminals being able to easily purchase guns from any law-obiding citizen that wants to make a dollar

2/22/2013 5:34:55 AM

Quote :

"But if you at any point bought a firearm through a gun dealer, there is already a record of you owning a firearm, no?"

right now it is reasonable to believe that a citizen sold that semi auto rifle and doesn't own it anymore. I don't think he should have to prove it with documentation.

2/22/2013 5:46:46 AM

Quote :

"So the slightly far-fetched fear of government confiscating your weapons"

History will show that it is less far-fetched than it may seem.

This is a good summary supporting the claim of government confiscation:

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/12/29/back-to-the-future-what-history-teaches-about-gun-confiscations/

I don't understand why we can't keep it simple. Surely there is already an electronic national database holding the criminal records of citizens. If someone wishes to make a private sale, they can pull up the information online to verify the party they are selling to are not convicted fellons are are US citizens. Hell, charge a $5 "maintenance fee" per name you pull to help cover operational costs. I'd have full support of that system. Like beatsunc, I am against any suggests that all firearms be documented via FFL or another papertrail where the government can track and possibly confiscate firearms they deem illegal.


[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM. Reason : .]

2/22/2013 6:01:51 AM

the video from hiro's link is worth watching

http://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 6:38 AM. Reason : a]

2/22/2013 6:37:18 AM

Quote :

"So the slightly far-fetched fear of government confiscating your weapons"

there are currently bills in multiple states that, if passed, would result in confiscation of firearms. is it really that "far-fetched"?

UBCs are unenforceable without a registration of every gun. the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1968 made any registration linking owners to their firearms illegal. they've even admitted we don't have time or money to enforce the gun laws we already have. an unenforceable law will do nothing to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals".

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 7:49 AM. Reason : fg]

2/22/2013 7:39:12 AM

Quote :

"Doesn't say shit about having to check anyone's credentials even when selling handguns. It may be illegal for them to own a firearm, but I don't see how it's illegal for me to sell it to them if I don't know that they are a felon and the government doesn't require me to check their background. They "recommend" writing down the information about the firearm and the name/address of the buyer, but it does not require me to. Worse yet, what keeps me from making it a little side business to buy guns and re-sell them to pricate parties, no questions asked, if no one is tracking how many firearms I bought and who i sold them to? Please tell me that someone, in some agency keeps a tally of how many firearms did one individual purchased from a licensed dealer each year. And if they do, is there a particular number i need to buy before it triggers some sort of an alarm?"

It's federal law that makes it illegal to sell to a criminal. As for your "business", yes they do track it. I'm not sure what the number is but it's fairly common for people that go on shopping sprees to get a visit from an agent to see what's up. AFAIK, there's no number on the books (except Califormia which is 5 handguns) so it leaves them open to investigate whoever they want. Basically the ATF doesn't have a problem with me buying a different shotgun every month to try them out. They only care if I'm selling them to make a profit (which there are no laws defining so again they can go after whoever they want) and basically in the business of selling guns.

2/22/2013 8:13:39 AM

The number is two in a week gets a flag. This is usually just verification contact with the FFL. Repetitive flags can get you a visit.

2/22/2013 9:07:57 AM

lol i've done 2 in an hour

2/22/2013 9:13:09 AM

Embed of video fromHiro's article.



I've also seen some other videos on the same subject. I do believe that it is the time when citizens actually DO need guns to defends themselves, as criminals are likely to use the lack of order, thin-spread law enforcement, and absence of the owners to loot property and commit violent crime for non-financial reasons as well. While I would have to do some research to see if there was martial law or some other provision that gives government an authority to confiscate guns in areas affected by natural disaster, let's assume it was a completely illegal gun grab (if there is such a law, it needs to be reviewed)

However, it is worth noting that none of these people resisted gun confiscation (which probably saved their lives). So at what point would gun owners actually reject the authority and fire back to protect their freedoms? If someone came to your house today, when there is no emergency in sight, and demanded that you turn in your guns without producing any warrant or a specific reason, would you stand your ground and shoot back? Would you give up the guns you had in the house and then get the unregistered guns from your secret stash and organize some other fellow citizens to march on the city hall? How would you end the tyranny?

I am not trolling, I honestly would like to get a better understanding of all aspects of the gun rights vs gun regulation issue.

2/22/2013 10:26:09 AM

You guys understand that they passed laws after that happened specifically because that happened to prevent it from happening again, right?

2/22/2013 10:29:14 AM

laws lol

2/22/2013 10:30:55 AM

His point was that your fantasies about the country devolving into 1984 overnight are now less likely than they were when Katrina happened. I mean, I know it's more fun to be paranoid.

2/22/2013 11:02:30 AM

Quote :

"UBCs are unenforceable without a registration of every gun. the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1968 made any registration linking owners to their firearms illegal. they've even admitted we don't have time or money to enforce the gun laws we already have. an unenforceable law will do nothing to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals""

So we have some existing legislation from half of a century ago that prohibits a certain behavior and we also are short on funding to enforce some other laws. Hmmmm, we have never ran into this issue before. It's a problem that pretty clearly can't be solved. Not with the technology we have today.

2/22/2013 12:04:52 PM

but the solution is more unenforceable laws?

2/22/2013 3:20:35 PM

I just don't understand this argument.

"If it doesn't fix the problem 100%, if it doesn't stop every single act of gun violence, if it doesn't prevent every illegal gun sale, then it's completely pointless."

Laws mitigate illegal activity, not completely eradicate it. You're putting an unrealistic standard of efficacy for gun laws that I wonder if you apply to any other type of law.

2/22/2013 3:26:10 PM

If we create an easy to use digital database both for background screenings and for gun tracking an make the transaction costs very low, then we recruit existing gun dealers to be an agent for the government that would administer the transactions between the private parties, similar how service stations perform state inspection for automobiles. Dealers will also benefit from extra foot traffic and will be able to maybe sell you some ammo or a holster to go with your newly purchased gun. Any additional funding for enforcement should fall on taxing gun sales, weapons manufacturers, and any movies or video games that explicitly feature use of guns (similar to how tobacco taxes help pay for healthcare or casino taxes help pay for addiction counseling). Just saying that something doesn't work because it's broken will not solve the problem. I am ready to listen to any other solutions for keeping the guns away from criminals. Please don't be one of this people that say "criminals will always find a way. I know that some of them will. But let's make the guns as inaccessible to them as possible. I think sometimes law-abiding citizens somehow think the solution to this problem is not in their interest, because they have a false sense of security from owning a firearm.

[Edited on February 22, 2013 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2013 3:32:21 PM

like a large number of gun owners, i don't want the govt to know what guns i possess

2/22/2013 3:42:39 PM

Just like the large number of gun owner who either refuse to recognize that US has a major problem with gun violence, or who recognize it but oppose any additional legislative measures that would try to reduce it. That type of no compromise, "not in my backyard" type of approach shows that they put their own interests above the interests of the society. Democratic process does not work when one side is not willing to compromise.

2/22/2013 5:41:49 PM

encouraging an opened up background check system, but not wanting to register guns is now not compromising?

I would be fine with having a site I could go to, put in information on someone, and verify that they are legal to own/purchase. All that needs to be returned is yes/no.
I do/will not type in what I am selling/buying where it will be logged.

Sure, I share some of my projects/builds/guns on this forum, but there is plenty that is not for the internet.

2/22/2013 6:00:16 PM

Quote :

"Just like the large number of gun owner who either refuse to recognize that US has a major problem with gun violence"

Do we? What is your reasoning behind saying we have a problem with gun violence in the US?

Quote :

"or who recognize it but oppose any additional legislative measures that would try to reduce it."

I think pro-gunners are tired of the anti-gun crowd getting so emotional when a tragedy happens that they're willing to push laws that disproportionately restrict all citizens based on the actions of one mentally-handicapped or otherwise troubled person. I watched an interview sometime after the SOTU address, where dude was interviewing the NRA president and asked him why the NRA changed from supporting background checks in the 90s (I believe) to not doing so now. And the reason the NRA guy gave was basically (and I'm paraphrasing): "we were told the NICS would be fast, simple, and reliable, but it seems that there are major problems with the information that feeds into it. If it didn't work before, what will these new checks do differently?". If even the NRA thought NICS was sufficient and was in favor of it at some point, why not work to correct the NICS system and try to provide it with the FULL info it needs to run correctly? Instead of creating a new scheme. Am I wrong for thinking it'd be better to patch the holes with the current system, not try something new? This comes to mind as I was also reading about a state passing legislation to include mental health (somehow, I cannot recall how) in the NICS system.

Quote :

"That type of no compromise, "not in my backyard" type of approach shows that they put their own interests above the interests of the society. Democratic process does not work when one side is not willing to compromise."

I don't think there's much compromise coming from the anti-gun crowd at all. There's the extreme anti-gunners that are saying "We want to disarm the U.S., so why don't we compromise and only confiscate semi-autos, mmk?" That's not really compromising, because there hasn't been much recommendations for the other side of the coin: say, if universal background checks require registration, then, maybe, as a compromise, suppressors move out of the NFA regulation they're under now, or maybe concealed carry permits carry have national reciprocity or become easier to obtain, for example. Typically, when something like these measures are mentioned, I see the anti-gun response as "WTF! That's worse than before. Why aren't you COMPROMISING?!"

I realize that the extreme anti-gunners make up a slim amount of the population. I get that. Similarly, I don't consider myself on the extreme pro-gun side either: I had a somewhat hard time coming up with the compromises I listed above because I think the way we handle firearms in this country is fine. I don't really see the need to change anything.

2/22/2013 6:32:05 PM