Tekel

iTrader: (2)

I still want my damn rocket launcher.

And will hopefully be taking my fire arms training to be able to apply for my permit soon.

Tekel

iTrader: (2)

All this BS talk about the "gun show loophole" is just a way of the media to disguise the Gov. trying to restrict private party gun sales making firearm tracking easier. There is no loophole If I went to a gun show, and purchased from a licensed FFL Dealer, i would be subject to the same background check as if I went to Joes Big Box store. The only "loophole" is if I setup at a gun show to sell my private collection. I don't have to run background checks. It is ridiculous to think I need to pay a FFL to run a background check on my cousin because I want to sell/give him a weapon.

And to hell with them. I will register my guns when the Army is there knocking on my front door.

And really? STRENGTHENING PENALTIES?!?!?!? WTF is that going to do a killer hell bent on killing? Absolutely nothing. He could care less about penalties. All this is doing is expanding the no gun easy to slaughter zones.

There are talks of Obama trying to get big business on his to get bans pushed, like he did with Obamacare. He got the pharma companies invested in it because it would be profitable for them. They funded much of the ad push to get the sheeple behind it. And also there is this:

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Bank of America Freezes Gun Manufacturer's Account, Company Owner Claims | CNS News

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Shows how dumb the legislators can be. Take the test:

http://www.evannappen.com/nappens-gun-law-quiz.html


edit: sorry it takes some time to load, but worth waiting.

Posted here for people that do not read the gun thread.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Bad link.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

.pdf was loading for me earlier, but now the link is to the website and you can click the test.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Fancy Beretta for gun control fan Terry McAuliffe | WashingtonExaminer.com

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Help me understand how a private party firearm sale is different than a private party automobile sale. If I own a car, I have the title and registration. To sell it, the buyer and I must arrange with the DMV to have ownership transferred from me to him.

In order to have it registered for legal use once he has acquired it, he must provide proof of insurance and a valid driver's license. If he does not have either, he is still physically able to drive a car, but not legally.


This is how a lot of voters will see the issue. What is a compelling argument (for a large number of voters) for why a firearm should have less regulation in the sale or transfer of than a car?

Hustler's standard, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" is not considered a compelling argument in this instance.


Braineack - that politician's purchase was perfectly in line with his stated positions. I'm sure you recognized that, but thought it was worth clarifying.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

re: NJ laws (via .pdf above)

That's is crazy. My Marlin .22 is an "assault weapon", buy my SKS and AR are not?

Tekel

iTrader: (2)

Same could be said about ovens, refrigerators, and chainsaws. The reason cars have to be registered for use is tax purposes. The reason guns will have to be registered is for collection purposes.

The problem comes in with their ultimate goal. No politician (that will ever get in office) has said we need to remove cars from modern society because they are too dangerous. We need to gather them up and have them disposed of. MANY politicians have said we need to get rid of guns completely. We need to round them up and dispose of them. IMHO, registration is the first step in this direction. This go around they get registration. In 1,5,10 years down the road when another psycho goes psycho and happens to have one of these evil weapons on them (which in 2 of the 3 most known circumstances this year it was a stolen weapon), they will push for more. They already have the list of everyone who owns an "assault weapon" so passing a law saying they are illegal to posses will be much easier to enforce. "Turn in your demon guns or face felony charges. We already know who has them"

Fireindc

iTrader: (13)

A firearm is a tool. Should we also have to register our power drills? Honestly, the main problem is it WILL be used for eventual confiscation, because as we all know history does repeat itself. Every instance of firearm registration has led to further regulation and in most cases confiscation. The end goal is to disarm us. The UN wants it, our apparently globalist president wants this. Just ask why, is it for our safety? Do you really believe that?

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Playing Devil's Advocate here...

"If you buy a firearm and then are later diagnosed with a mental disorder that would bar you from buying a new firearm, why shouldn't the government know you have that original firearm and be allowed to come and collect it from you?"

Fireindc

iTrader: (13)

Because then you require a national firearms registry to do this, which infringes on our rights. Also, again, registration leads to confiscation.

We could have the safest society in the world if we gave up all of our freedoms. If we had a cop on every corner, 12am curfew, cctv in our homes to protect the children, outright banned automobiles, installed RFID chips in everyone to track them, and forced everyone to live in well regulated sectors. But that's fascism, and Americans won't stand for that.

I know I've used that argument before, but that's just how I feel. The media scares the **** out of every soccer mom and all the sudden we are SO READY to give up our freedoms for a false sense of safety, even though getting shot, let alone by a scary "assault rifle", is so statistically minute. Similar to a terrorist attack.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

The difference between registering a car and the gun is that you are using the car on public roads, and I do not use my guns on public property. If I offer you 5grand for your miata cash, you sign the title over to me and keep your plates. You then return the plates to the DMV and tell them the car was sold and you no longer own it. I then tow the car home, turn it into a spec miata, and take it to the track to race then I do not have to register the car. Registering it and such only comes into play when I want to use the vehicle on public streets.

When I go shooting, I do not do it on any public property. I am always on private property, either property that my family owns or property that a gun range owns.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

This is another basic commentary on the complete lack of knowledge the average person has about how guns in some states can be purchased.

When an uninformed person hears "gunshow loophole", their vision is of a gang-member dressed in full ghetto-clothes walking up to Bubba's table, slipping him $200, and walking away with a full-auto AK. That's the "image" the anti-gunners have put in the heads of soccer-moms. It's their perception that this happens at every gunshow all day long and is a perfectly legal thing to do.

We all know how expensive/rare/hard-to-get/Class3 stuff is for a person doing it legally.

We also know that it's a felony for a person to buy a gun in an FTF sale when he knows he's not legally able to own one, and a felony for a person to FTF sell a gun to somebody he knows can't own one.

The truth is that FTF sales where a legit individual who legally owns a gun sells it to a person who can't legally own one (where the buying is being deceptive) accounts for almost no gun crime.

Crooked FFL's are actually a large source of crime guns, also are dual illegal FTF sales (ie an illegally owned gun sold to a prohibited person... black market), and straw purchases. Stolen guns are also on the list of "where criminals get guns", but isn't near as frequent as family members or black market.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I feel that's a much more compelling explanation for most people. Anything that relies solely on the "shall not infringe!" or "any additional regulation leads to confiscation" arguments - whether or not they are perfectly valid - are far less compelling for the average person.

And, like it or not, the average person is probably the one voting for the people who ultimately vote on any additional restrictions or legislation.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Another interesting thing to consider when comparing car ownership to gun ownership is licensing.

Only a few states/cities have provisions where a person must have some sort of license to own a gun.

I also know that car dealerships won't sell you a car without proof of a drivers license. I don't know if this is an actual "law", or merely policy, but I know for a fact that liability for a dealership means they have to see a DL before you can take a test drive. I'm pretty sure that also extends to buying a new vehicle.

To buy a new gun from an FFL, you only have to provide identification... but no license.

The argument then comes full circle about the number of people killed every year in cars. On average, 11,000 people each year are killed BY DRUNK DRIVERS ALONE... we call them "accidents". Yet we don't hold bars accountable when a dude leaves there drunk and t-bones a minivan, or the host of a party, or the liquor company, or the car manufacturer, or the guy who designed the traffic lights... yadda yadda.

The anti-gunners know that gun control policy doesn't work because guns aren't the problem... that's why their GOAL is, and has always been, the elimination of firearms in the hands of civilians. Every nibble they take is one step closer to their goal of disarming the masses to make us safer. AWB's and mag-limits are their current spotlight target... but it's just a stepping stone.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I cant watch this without

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

While I believe the bolded portion is probable, do you have any primary source data for this (like an FBI or BJS paper)?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I don't care for either of those but it was nice to see that chav ------ get a taste of his own medicine...which is rhinocerous ejaculate.