Gun ownership poll

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That’s why I used a question mark to, you know, signify a question. Is that your solution?

Are you incapable of reading and comprehending a simple sentence?

Originally Posted by Mark17

I offered no solution in my post and the words you are trying to put in my mouth are not at all what I think.

[G1911]

Not a single person has said, implied, or intimated that the mentally deranged, convicted violent offenders etc. have an unrestricted right to firearms.

I am continually amused that it keeps coming back to arguing things that are irrelevant or fictional. Background checks are already the law (nobody has yet been able to post specifically what they mean by strengthening them after they learn this), assault rifles have not been available for teens to buy since 1986 when the registry closed and it became a serious federal crime, and nobody is advocating arming mental patients and prisoners. It is easier, of course, to argue against fantasy positions of what people wish somebody else had said, but it is a silly straw man.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Are you incapable of reading and comprehending a simple sentence?

I’m asking a question - what is your position? The question mark should make that clear.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not a single person has said, implied, or intimated that the mentally deranged, convicted violent offenders etc. have an unrestricted right to firearms.

I am continually amused that it keeps coming back to arguing things that are irrelevant or fictional. Background checks are already the law (nobody has yet been able to post specifically what they mean by strengthening them after they learn this), assault rifles have not been available for teens to buy since 1986 when the registry closed and it became a serious federal crime, and nobody is advocating arming mental patients and prisoners. It is easier, of course, to argue against fantasy positions of what people wish somebody else had said, but it is a silly straw man.

People have, in fact, already answered the question about the need to strengthen the background check process. They are routinely not done in time to stop a sale. They should be done.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I’m asking a question - what is your position? The question mark should make that clear.

I've been active on this thread, which has well over 1,000 posts. If you want to know my position, read and try to comprehend.

There is no simple answer. People who propose simple answers (ban "assault" weapons, ban scary looking rifles, more gun control, don't let the wrong people have guns) are being, well, simplistic.

[desi.furball]

I'm the proud owner of two machine guns NFA weapons I'm at 10 and an AK-47 just something to think about sometimes when somebody comes to the house I don't know who you are or what you are but you're a real idiot we're proud American people we like baseball cards the American pastime don't know who you are what you are but it doesn't sound like anybody I want to know or want to be involved with you have a blessed day you and yours

Sent from my TMRVL4G using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

People have, in fact, already answered the question about the need to strengthen the background check process. They are routinely not done in time to stop a sale. They should be done.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

Actually running them doesn’t require “strengthening” the law. The FBI can simply run them through NICS; an automated system, as is in its name. The FBI doing its job under the law doesn’t require a new law, it’s already there.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Actually running them doesn’t require “strengthening” the law. The FBI can simply run them through NICS; an automated system, as is in its name. The FBI doing its job under the law doesn’t require a new law, it’s already there.

If the law says there has to be a background check before a gun sale happens and that is not being done, the law clearly needs to be enforced better. Instead of arguing against the semantics of it do you agree with that at least?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

If the law says there has to be a background check before a gun sale happens and that is not being done, the law clearly needs to be enforced better. Instead of arguing against the semantics of it do you agree with that at least?

It’s not semantics; some of the participants simply do not know the laws and propose bizarre or vague things as a result. There has been talk of strengthening them, without defining what that means. The law gives the state plenty of time to do it. It’s an automated check in an instant system. They can do them if they wanted too. The laws allows them too. There is nothing to change there. If you’d like for the FBI to be competent, that is an entirely separate matter than anything I said.

Do I think it needs to be done better? This has been answered several times. Background checks clearly are not in accord with the Constitution (you do not need the state to approve your mouth to practice free speech, you do not need the state to give you permission after they look into you to have a right to not incriminate yourself, etc.), but background checks don’t really bother me. Personally I don’t think it makes much of a real difference whether the FBI is incompetent or not in this regard. Background checks do not seem to work at their goal. The vast majority of them are performed with seemingly little to no impact. It is a quixotic quest to create a Utopia where people are only murdered with older technology tools that are more palatable to a political faction. That ship sailed before 1776.

[ALR-bishop]

Welcome to the board Desi. You mentioned baseball cards, what do you collect ?

[desi.furball]

I collect post war baseball cards and machine guns

Sent from my TMRVL4G using Tapatalk

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by desi.furball

I collect post war baseball cards and machine guns

Sent from my TMRVL4G using Tapatalk

Awesome, post some pictures.

[G1911]

Got to combine them for it to be cool.

[BobbyStrawberry]

It's the thread that just won't die!

[irv]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

It's the thread that just won't die!

Should I bump up the covid vaccine thread or have you finally learned they are garbage and did absolutely nothing, unless you consider making things worse, something?

I have lots of these too that MSM also didn't tell you. Ever wonder why they try so hard to keep relevant information away from the public? Think, just maybe they, MSM, are told what to talk about and show you?

https://youtu.be/UD7q7vZtbMY

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

Should I bump up the covid vaccine thread or have you finally learned they are garbage and did absolutely nothing, unless you consider making things worse, something?

I have lots of these too that MSM also didn't tell you. Ever wonder why they try so hard to keep relevant information away from the public? Think, just maybe they, MSM, are told what to talk about and show you?

https://youtu.be/UD7q7vZtbMY

Send more YouTube clips. Can’t be wrong if you have those.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Send more YouTube clips. Can’t be wrong if you have those.

If it's on the internet, it must be true!

[Chuck9788]

Like vehicles, guns should be used responsibly. I see little difference between an irresponsible gun owner and a drunk driver. I support law abiding gun owners.

[G1911]

1950's sluggers exercising their right to bare arms. And bear arms.

[Exhibitman]

George Carlin put it best as far as I am concerned:

Everyone in this country is running around yammering about their fucking rights. "I have a right, you have no right, we have a right."

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, shit like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional.

*****

Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights. Alright. You know about it.

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

_____________________________

ALL THIS DEBATE ABOUT GUN RIGHTS IS AKIN TO DEBATING THE NUMBER OF ANGELS THAT CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN: FICTION. YOUR RIGHTS ARE WHAT FIVE ASSHOLES IN WASHINGTON DECIDE THEY ARE. PERIOD END OF STORY.

[G1911]

Oh yay, it's starting over again.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh yay, it's starting over again.

It certainly is, and as you know, it is even worse up here.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

It certainly is, and as you know, it is even worse up here.

I heard they banned all transfers of handguns for you fellers up north. I’m sure we will see crime plummet as the bad guys just stop. Yes. I’m sure that’s why, and that that will happen.

I would think most on both sides would agree that just because effective power lies in the whim of the state due to their monopoly on the means of control and mass violence, that does not mean the populace should take a nihilistic apathy of not caring, or not doing what we can to preserve rights (I’ve yet to find someone who doesn’t like any of them). Imagine a world where nobody even debated or tried to preserve anything but the will of the state. I find it hard to imagine many would enjoy that.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I heard they banned all transfers of handguns for you fellers up north. I’m sure we will see crime plummet as the bad guys just stop. Yes. I’m sure that’s why, and that that will happen.

I would think most on both sides would agree that just because effective power lies in the whim of the state due to their monopoly on the means of control and mass violence, that does not mean the populace should take a nihilistic apathy of not caring, or not doing what we can to preserve rights (I’ve yet to find someone who doesn’t like any of them). Imagine a world where nobody even debated or tried to preserve anything but the will of the state. I find it hard to imagine many would enjoy that.

I can imagine it. North Korea. A country where 25 million people are starving or thin, and one guy is so fat he's basically round.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights. Alright. You know about it.

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

You forgot to mention specifically WHO did this and WHO was responsible for it.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

You forgot to mention specifically WHO did this and WHO was responsible for it.

Irrelevant. The government does shitty stuff every day; the guardians (courts) are supposed to put a stop to it. Instead. the Supreme Court approved it. They are the true villains of the internment story because they failed to be the check on governmental overreach. As the recent Dobbs case makes crystal clear, all these 'rights' can be reconfigured whenever five idiots decide they want to do it.

[ALR-bishop]

“Sometimes you just have to march right in and demand all your rights. Even if you are not sure what your rights are, or even who you are talking to. And when you leave, slam the door”….. Jack Handey

[G1911]

While I have favored a right to abortion personally (I must concede the increasing push for "after-birth abortion" that appears to be simply first degree murder and my states radical legislation makes me start to re-examine some of my thinking on having limits), I am unable to figure how the 14th amendment provides an unlimited right to abortion through a certain trimester. Try as I might, as I have read it over and over again through my life, I am never able to find this in the document whatsoever. This certainly would be absolutely shocking to its authors. Many on the left have recognized over the last five decades that this ruling was not exactly on solid ground, to say the least. The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that this issue defaults to the states and the people under the 10th amendment does not appear to be a random decision by five assholes, but a 6-3 ruling to actually use the document they are supposed to be using, as was the decision around the same time that the 2nd cannot be ignored. They have ignored this document many times, such as to allow the internment, but Dobbs is not an example of this. One should never mistake something they don't like with being wrong.

[clydepepper]

Though I certainly do not want to get involved in the original discussion, I feel compelled to ask this one question:


Why are 'radicals' only labeled as such when coming from one end of the 'spectrum'?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Though I certainly do not want to get involved in the original discussion, I feel compelled to ask this one question:


Why are 'radicals' only labeled as such when coming from one end of the 'spectrum'?

Depending where you get your news (or "news" if you prefer that) it is possible to read about "radicals" like - for example - AOC on the one hand, or Marjorie Taylor Greene on the other...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Though I certainly do not want to get involved in the original discussion, I feel compelled to ask this one question:


Why are 'radicals' only labeled as such when coming from one end of the 'spectrum'?

I do not think this is true. Each side labels the other sides more extreme takes, or the ones they dislike the most even though that is incorrect usage, as radical. Read the propaganda from each party and you will see this.

I am stuck in the middle with some very conservative (I do not think the state should steal half my money and I like the Constitution as actually written) and deeply left (I’m fine with abortion, I am in favor of universal health care, I am young enough to still be a little bitter about the police harassing young people for being young people in public) views. Both the traditional sides have some radical views.

Some of California’s laws are pretty radical. I’ll stand by that. They tend to go as far to one side in a uniparty state as possible. That seems to meet the dictionary.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not think this is true. Each side labels the other sides more extreme takes, or the ones they dislike the most even though that is incorrect usage, as radical. Read the propaganda from each party and you will see this.

I am stuck in the middle with some very conservative (I do not think the state should steal half my money and I like the Constitution as actually written) and deeply left (I’m fine with abortion, I am in favor of universal health care, I am young enough to still be a little bitter about the police harassing young people for being young people in public) views. Both the traditional sides have some radical views.

Some of California’s laws are pretty radical. I’ll stand by that. They tend to go as far to one side in a uniparty state as possible. That seems to meet the dictionary.

Greg- it sounds like we have a lot of common ground- I wish everyone would understand that...it's a shame that those on the extreme are ALWAYS the loudest...and are ALWAYS provided a mic.

Again- IMO: DOGS are far better people than people are.

[Carter08]

I think one thing people could try to do is understand why the other side is so “extreme” in their views. I tend to support abortion rights. Fully understand why those opposed to it are extremely opposed to it though and won’t vilify them for it - they consider it murder.

[G1911]

Now we can all agree about the dogs, they remain adorable no matter what else they do

[irv]

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

I heard they banned all transfers of handguns for you fellers up north. I’m sure we will see crime plummet as the bad guys just stop. Yes. I’m sure that’s why, and that that will happen.

I would think most on both sides would agree that just because effective power lies in the whim of the state due to their monopoly on the means of control and mass violence, that does not mean the populace should take a nihilistic apathy of not caring, or not doing what we can to preserve rights (I’ve yet to find someone who doesn’t like any of them). Imagine a world where nobody even debated or tried to preserve anything but the will of the state. I find it hard to imagine many would enjoy that.

Oh, it's working wonders already!
Amazing how those that can't think for themselves think that taking guns and gun rights away from legal law abiding citizens will actually reduce gun crimes. Lets all listen to our incompetent govt and their funded media and ignore the elephant in the room.
Canadian murder rates reach new highs — and it's mainly due to gang violence
https://torontosun.com/opinion/golds...n-will-say-why
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/many-c...poll-1.5907346
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...5bf52c439199ce

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

Oh, it's working wonders already!
Amazing how those that can't think for themselves think that taking guns and gun rights away from legal law abiding citizens will actually reduce gun crimes. Lets all listen to our incompetent govt and their funded media and ignore the elephant in the room.
Canadian murder rates reach new highs — and it's mainly due to gang violence
https://torontosun.com/opinion/golds...n-will-say-why
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/many-c...poll-1.5907346
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...5bf52c439199ce

Surely the gangs will stop and give up their guns now that is illegal. Surely the law-abiding people losing effective ability to defend themselves won't become victims. Surely!

I've heard Canada is also redrawing the so-called and ever fluid 'assault weapon' rules, though most of the articles don't seem to give any specifics on what they actually are proposing specifically (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun...earm-1.6661936). Presuming the typical ban-aesthetic-features-and-anything-that-looks-like-it-may-have-been-invented-after-1900?

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

Surely the gangs will stop and give up their guns now that is illegal. Surely the law-abiding people losing effective ability to defend themselves won't become victims. Surely!

I've heard Canada is also redrawing the so-called and ever fluid 'assault weapon' rules, though most of the articles don't seem to give any specifics on what they actually are proposing specifically (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun...earm-1.6661936). Presuming the typical ban-aesthetic-features-and-anything-that-looks-like-it-may-have-been-invented-after-1900?

It's bizarro world up here I tell you!!! Our moronic leader is on a huge controlling power trip. Calling him a dictator doesn't even describe him fully, tbh.
I believe he actually thinks he is the smartest person to ever walk the face of the earth.
'Largest gun ban in Canadian history': Bill amendment could criminalize millions of hunting rifles

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ation_with_ads

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

It's bizarro world up here I tell you!!! Our moronic leader is on a huge controlling power trip. Calling him a dictator doesn't even describe him fully, tbh.
I believe he actually thinks he is the smartest person to ever walk the face of the earth.
'Largest gun ban in Canadian history': Bill amendment could criminalize millions of hunting rifles

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ation_with_ads

Tough when people think they’re smarter than others and don’t understand their ideas might not be so sound, agreed. We should all learn from that thought perhaps.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

Surely the gangs will stop and give up their guns now that is illegal. Surely the law-abiding people losing effective ability to defend themselves won't become victims. Surely!

I've heard Canada is also redrawing the so-called and ever fluid 'assault weapon' rules, though most of the articles don't seem to give any specifics on what they actually are proposing specifically (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun...earm-1.6661936). Presuming the typical ban-aesthetic-features-and-anything-that-looks-like-it-may-have-been-invented-after-1900?

Canadian firearms ownership will be dealt its most massive blow in history.

The amendment not only proposes to prohibit a vast array of rifles and shotguns (with no mention of compensation for current owners), it also includes changing the definition of a prohibited firearm in the criminal code to include: "a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging center-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed."

We're not sliding down the slippery slope, were skiing down it.


People really need to wake up! You guys are a lot more lucky than us for sure as you actually have a constitution that isn't written on toilet paper and judges in place to ensure, for the most part, it is upheld.

People also need to wake up the fact that despite your constitution, your Democratic party is trying to blow it up and do the same things as our Liberals up here and around the world before it is too late.
https://youtu.be/WcnETSsSLOQ

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

Canadian firearms ownership will be dealt its most massive blow in history.

The amendment not only proposes to prohibit a vast array of rifles and shotguns (with no mention of compensation for current owners), it also includes changing the definition of a prohibited firearm in the criminal code to include: "a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging center-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed."

We're not sliding down the slippery slope, were skiing down it.


People really need to wake up! You guys are a lot more lucky than us for sure as you actually have a constitution that isn't written on toilet paper and judges in place to ensure, for the most part, it is upheld.

People also need to wake up the fact that despite your constitution, your Democratic party is trying to blow it up and do the same things as our Liberals up here and around the world before it is too late.
https://youtu.be/WcnETSsSLOQ

This phrasing is so weird. If a firearm can accept a 1 round detachable magazine, it can accept a hypothetical thousand round detachable magazine. The round limiter here does nothing and bans essentially any detachable magazine gun. The provisions specifically naming a host of firearms include even more extreme examples, there are literal single shot guns and bolt action manually operated arms on it. This includes some even pre-US civil war technology. Looks like you’ll be allowed some single shots or manual arms based on a 100% undefined and arbitrary nature of the name stamped on the receiver. The “cartridges of the type” seems to be learning from the recent California drama where a magazine ban’s poor verbiage has led to some putting a small magazine of a different caliber in a non functional place and using a standard capacity mag in the mag well to run the gun as normal, which DOJ insists is illegal but meets the law as actually written.

Amusingly, this verbiage would not ban belt feeds by feature, only if naked specifically in the list. So it would be okay to have a few hundred rounds through a semi auto belt fed support weapon that is not specifically named in the ban list BUT you can’t have an old Mauser bolt action or a Ruger single shot. The banners not knowing anything about the subject (we had as many demonstrably false mechanical claims in this very thread as we did banner posts) usually makes these laws bizarrely phrased and inconsistent like this.

The Constitution has stopped a lot of the worst infringements in the US; but we are just a couple justices away from a court that will rule to completely ignore the parts of the Constitution it doesn’t like and invent completely fictional clauses that do not exist in said document. The lack of any enforcement power already allows the banner states to pass one unconstitutional and illegal law after another, just a little less extreme. I’m allowed to keep my detachable mag semi autos, but you can’t buy a new one here unless you remove tons of other parts to sneak around the rules, and my ability to keep mine comes with a host of legal traps that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying to make us political criminals. It is even technically illegal under these political punishment laws for me to stop for lunch on my way to or from the range. Thankfully people are made safe by this law. Yes, that’s what we’re doing. It’s about the children. And safety. Yep.