It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Baby McNown wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
You're completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the literal meaning of God. It means they are negative rights, or rights that we have from birth and without anyone else having to provide anything.

Never mind that FF couldn't get chemically out of balance far enough to employ the phrase "rights granted by God" unless he's being facetious and/or doing a bit.


Based on my limited time/observations here, it seems like his conception of a God is spilled booze, correct?

Newbies will learn that it's a good attempt at humor, but doing it to the guy who can go toe to toe with Seacrest on scripture is probably the wrong choice of target. 8)

I appreciate the compliment but I only read the Bible a couple times, during basic training when all non-religious books were banned. I won’t say I can quite go toe to toe with Seacrest on it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:40 pm 
FavreFan wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
You're completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with the literal meaning of God. It means they are negative rights, or rights that we have from birth and without anyone else having to provide anything.

Never mind that FF couldn't get chemically out of balance far enough to employ the phrase "rights granted by God" unless he's being facetious and/or doing a bit.


Based on my limited time/observations here, it seems like his conception of a God is spilled booze, correct?

Newbies will learn that it's a good attempt at humor, but doing it to the guy who can go toe to toe with Seacrest on scripture is probably the wrong choice of target. 8)

I appreciate the compliment but I only read the Bible a couple times, during basic training when all non-religious books were banned. I won’t say I can quite go toe to toe with Seacrest on it.

Oh that was a dig on you. Sorry. I'm just assuming the gun is pointed at me in these right now.

So what you are saying is you are not Nathan Kendrick?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
How is this even a thing?
The intention is that the government doesn't grant you the right. You're born into it. The government cannot take it. God as in Jehovah or Allah or whatever is a simple way of saying it was yours at the moment of birth.
Is this what we've been reduced to, arguing the semantics of "god given"?

What a low point for this conversation.

You aren't born into having a fucking stack of ARs in the bedroom closet Darko.

No shit, Chet. What's your point?
Do you know what you're talking about?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Watching this thread:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:54 pm 
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
How is this even a thing?
The intention is that the government doesn't grant you the right. You're born into it. The government cannot take it. God as in Jehovah or Allah or whatever is a simple way of saying it was yours at the moment of birth.
Is this what we've been reduced to, arguing the semantics of "god given"?

What a low point for this conversation.

You aren't born into having a fucking stack of ARs in the bedroom closet Darko.

No shit, Chet. What's your point?
Do you know what you're talking about?

You don't think that most die hard Second Amendment supporters (is that nicer than "ammosexuals"?) think that Heller gives them inalienable right to an arsenal in their broom closet? That's naive.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Watching this thread:

Image

Seems an odd gif to post when this thread is the message board equivalent of a 72-0 football game.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:58 pm 
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Watching this thread:

Image

Seems an odd gif to post when this thread is the message board equivalent of a 72-0 football game.

One day it will happen. Juice will make a post and it won't contain a link or something he copy/pasted. That day he will become a man.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
How is this even a thing?
The intention is that the government doesn't grant you the right. You're born into it. The government cannot take it. God as in Jehovah or Allah or whatever is a simple way of saying it was yours at the moment of birth.
Is this what we've been reduced to, arguing the semantics of "god given"?

What a low point for this conversation.

You aren't born into having a fucking stack of ARs in the bedroom closet Darko.

No shit, Chet. What's your point?
Do you know what you're talking about?

You don't think that most die hard Second Amendment supporters (is that nicer than "ammosexuals"?) think that Heller gives them inalienable right to an arsenal in their broom closet? That's naive.

According to the law of the land, sir, we were born with the right to own those tools. We were not born with the tools. Surely you understand the difference.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:12 pm 
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
How is this even a thing?
The intention is that the government doesn't grant you the right. You're born into it. The government cannot take it. God as in Jehovah or Allah or whatever is a simple way of saying it was yours at the moment of birth.
Is this what we've been reduced to, arguing the semantics of "god given"?

What a low point for this conversation.

You aren't born into having a fucking stack of ARs in the bedroom closet Darko.

No shit, Chet. What's your point?
Do you know what you're talking about?

You don't think that most die hard Second Amendment supporters (is that nicer than "ammosexuals"?) think that Heller gives them inalienable right to an arsenal in their broom closet? That's naive.

According to the law of the land, sir, we were born with the right to own those tools. We were not born with the tools. Surely you understand the difference.

I understand the difference. I also understand we were told by Scalia in Heller that we were. Unless you disband the military the Framers said no such thing. Surely you understand the difference.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby... please read Heller and McDonald before you talk about it.
The militia are the people.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:20 pm 
Darkside wrote:
Baby... please read Heller and McDonald before you talk about it.
The militia are the people.

And the intent was to not have a standing army. Please read James Madison before you talk about it.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby... please read Heller and McDonald before you talk about it.
The militia are the people.

And the intent was to not have a standing army. Please read James Madison before you talk about it.

Why would they say, literally the "right of the people" and not "the right of the militia" then?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:24 pm 
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby... please read Heller and McDonald before you talk about it.
The militia are the people.

And the intent was to not have a standing army. Please read James Madison before you talk about it.

Why would they say, literally the "right of the people" and not "the right of the militia" then?

How does that sentence start?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby... please read Heller and McDonald before you talk about it.
The militia are the people.

And the intent was to not have a standing army. Please read James Madison before you talk about it.

Why would they say, literally the "right of the people" and not "the right of the militia" then?

How does that sentence start?

I can play that too. How does it end?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:26 pm 
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby... please read Heller and McDonald before you talk about it.
The militia are the people.

And the intent was to not have a standing army. Please read James Madison before you talk about it.

Why would they say, literally the "right of the people" and not "the right of the militia" then?

How does that sentence start?

I can play that too. How does it end?

It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Quote:
It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

According to the supreme court, who I trust more than both of us, it means there is an individual right to bear arms. Until they hear it again I could give a hoot what your opinion is, because the constitution says the supreme court interprets the law and that's their interpretation.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby... please read Heller and McDonald before you talk about it.
The militia are the people.

And the intent was to not have a standing army. Please read James Madison before you talk about it.

Why would they say, literally the "right of the people" and not "the right of the militia" then?

How does that sentence start?

I can play that too. How does it end?

It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:33 pm 
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

According to the supreme court, who I trust more than both of us, it means there is an individual right to bear arms. Until they hear it again I could give a hoot what your opinion is, because the constitution says the supreme court interprets the law and that's their interpretation.

And theoretically if Heller is overturned you will just shrug and go "welp that's the law. My opinion doesn't matter anymore."? I find that extremely hard to believe. That's what I get about the group that you get so offended at stupid names for. You hold up Heller like it's the freaking Book of Matthew. It's one justice away from falling.

Should I tell all the pro-birth crowd on here that I could give a hoot what their opinion is because Roe is the law? I don't follow that logic at all.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:45 pm
Posts: 689
pizza_Place: My own
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

According to the supreme court, who I trust more than both of us, it means there is an individual right to bear arms. Until they hear it again I could give a hoot what your opinion is, because the constitution says the supreme court interprets the law and that's their interpretation.


Not to mention that if we are arguing within the four corners of the Constitution, it very clearly states that an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, period. The first part of the amendment regarding militias provides a rationale, but the right itself is not dependent upon the portion regarding militias. There is no "if" in the amendment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

According to the supreme court, who I trust more than both of us, it means there is an individual right to bear arms. Until they hear it again I could give a hoot what your opinion is, because the constitution says the supreme court interprets the law and that's their interpretation.

And theoretically if Heller is overturned you will just shrug and go "welp that's the law. My opinion doesn't matter anymore."? I find that extremely hard to believe. That's what I get about the group that you get so offended at stupid names for. You hold up Heller like it's the freaking Book of Matthew. It's one justice away from falling.

Should I tell all the pro-birth crowd on here that I could give a hoot what their opinion is because Roe is the law? I don't follow that logic at all.

Baby I abide by the law. And I'm saying, quite clearly, my opinion doesn't matter now, so why would in say differently down the line? Are you accusing me of being willing to commit crimes?
I currently abide by all firearm laws. I intend to do so in the future.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Baby McNown wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Watching this thread:

Image

Seems an odd gif to post when this thread is the message board equivalent of a 72-0 football game.

One day it will happen. Juice will make a post and it won't contain a link or something he copy/pasted. That day he will become a man.


:lol: This isn't a meme, stop trying to make it one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:38 pm 
storkinastorm wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

According to the supreme court, who I trust more than both of us, it means there is an individual right to bear arms. Until they hear it again I could give a hoot what your opinion is, because the constitution says the supreme court interprets the law and that's their interpretation.


Not to mention that if we are arguing within the four corners of the Constitution, it very clearly states that an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, period. The first part of the amendment regarding militias provides a rationale, but the right itself is not dependent upon the portion regarding militias. There is no "if" in the amendment.

That's the Scalia argument. I get it. Go back and read Madison's writings. That was not the intent. I can not argue that's what SCOTUS as constituted at the time decided that they meant. I'm saying the words "well regulated" and "militia" were put there for a reason.

SCOTUS are the ones who declared that those were irrelevant.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
FavreFan wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Watching this thread:

Image

Seems an odd gif to post when this thread is the message board equivalent of a 72-0 football game.


Yeah but imagine you REALLY like watching a state directional get the crap kicked out of them because your asshole brother in law went their.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Double post.


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:40 pm 
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
:lol: This isn't a meme, stop trying to make it one.

No. Memes are usually funny. You are not funny in any way shape or form.

OK maybe you're funny like watching the Browns or the Coyotes is funny.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:42 pm 
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

According to the supreme court, who I trust more than both of us, it means there is an individual right to bear arms. Until they hear it again I could give a hoot what your opinion is, because the constitution says the supreme court interprets the law and that's their interpretation.

And theoretically if Heller is overturned you will just shrug and go "welp that's the law. My opinion doesn't matter anymore."? I find that extremely hard to believe. That's what I get about the group that you get so offended at stupid names for. You hold up Heller like it's the freaking Book of Matthew. It's one justice away from falling.

Should I tell all the pro-birth crowd on here that I could give a hoot what their opinion is because Roe is the law? I don't follow that logic at all.

Baby I abide by the law. And I'm saying, quite clearly, my opinion doesn't matter now, so why would in say differently down the line? Are you accusing me of being willing to commit crimes?
I currently abide by all firearm laws. I intend to do so in the future.

You seem to feel your opinion matters very much right now, if only because it matches that of the majority in Heller.

I'm sure you abide by all firearm laws. You are one of the good ones.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Quote:
It ends with "shall not be infringed" I'm not afraid to directly quote it. So if you want to play let's play. Well regulated. What does that mean?

According to the supreme court, who I trust more than both of us, it means there is an individual right to bear arms. Until they hear it again I could give a hoot what your opinion is, because the constitution says the supreme court interprets the law and that's their interpretation.

And theoretically if Heller is overturned you will just shrug and go "welp that's the law. My opinion doesn't matter anymore."? I find that extremely hard to believe. That's what I get about the group that you get so offended at stupid names for. You hold up Heller like it's the freaking Book of Matthew. It's one justice away from falling.

Should I tell all the pro-birth crowd on here that I could give a hoot what their opinion is because Roe is the law? I don't follow that logic at all.

Baby I abide by the law. And I'm saying, quite clearly, my opinion doesn't matter now, so why would in say differently down the line? Are you accusing me of being willing to commit crimes?
I currently abide by all firearm laws. I intend to do so in the future.

You seem to feel your opinion matters very much right now, if only because it matches that of the majority in Heller.

I'm sure you abide by all firearm laws. You are one of the good ones.

I'm only asking people to read my opinions and consider them. Hopefully we can reach an accord. I'm also listening to other reasonable opinions. Would you say you're doing that?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:51 pm 
Darkside wrote:
I'm only asking people to read my opinions and consider them. Hopefully we can reach an accord. I'm also listening to other reasonable opinions. Would you say you're doing that?

With people willing to have reasonable discourse on it absolutely. With people like Chas, fuck no. With people like Ogie who demand to know what rights I would give my life for and then back down on giving their own life, I go back and forth 8)


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
FavreFan wrote:
For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You're really a lot more impressed with that article than you should be. It's basically an even worse version of that geek at science fairs who does a report about the persistence of "dihydrogen monoxide" in the bodies of people who die of all sorts of diseases and gets people to say it should be banned to make some deep point about the importance of scientific education.

Also that bit at the end about states being allowed to enact more restrictive laws is pretty rich coming in an article co-authored by these two since they've been actively lobbying for reciprocal concealed and carry to become a thing and undermine states' abilities to pass such laws.


Last edited by ZephMarshack on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 32891
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
Baby McNown wrote:
With people willing to have reasonable discourse on it absolutely. With people like Chas, fuck no. With people like Ogie who demand to know what rights I would give my life for and then back down on giving their own life, I go back and forth 8)


You've never really stated what you believe.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group