Hypocritical celebs, liberal politicians, Bloomberg, Schumer, Clintons, Obama

[oldshadow]

Now you're just playing with words. Who is stopping you from owning a gun?

If you require training just to own the gun then you are infringing on that right. To carry is still infringing but has passed the courts so far.

I have not problem with requiring all the training people want as long as it's free or a part of an unorganized militia training.

 

[sub_thug]

The license would have to be very hard to get if it not only allowed you to purchase any firearm, but also to conceal carry. A lot of people simply should not be allowed to conceal carry, that requires an enormous amount of responsibility and restraint. So the test would have to weed a lot of people out.

So if you tie concealed carry with normal gun ownership, a lot of people simply won't be able to own a gun. That would never fly in this country, a lot of people would freak out, including the NRA.

Background investigation, pass a written test of firearms laws, qualify on the weapon, and show that you can handle it safely. It's honestly not that hard, and that's the standard in places like Texas for concealed carry now. I can't see it barring too many people, honestly. I think you'll see more pushback from states like MD and CA that do "may issue" concealed carry licenses versus the states that do "shall issue."

 

[Higus]

If you require training just to own the gun then you are infringing on that right. To carry is still infringing but has passed the courts so far.

I have not problem with requiring all the training people want as long as it's free or a part of an unorganized militia training.

Again, playing with words. Isn't having to purchase a gun instead of being given one for free is an infringement?

 

[oldshadow]

Who trains these people? To what standard? To what end? Who pays for all of this? What you're honestly talking about is establishing a National Guard, and that's already been done.

Not a national guard.

A state unorganized militia paid for by the state and local goverment.

No uniforms required. Training done by the local police department.

No meeting other then the training.

When called by the local government in a time of need you can go or not go depending on your situation.

The way the militia was basicly in the revolutionary war.

 

[sub_thug]

Not a national guard.

A state unorganized militia paid for by the state and local goverment.

No uniforms required. Training done by the local police department.

No meeting other then the training.

When called by the local government in a time of need you can go or not go depending on your situation.

The way the militia was basicly in the revolutionary war.

That sounds super expensive, like a big hurdle to accessing your 2A rights, and I can't see the obvious benefit to the community. Sorry, man. I just don't see it.

 

[oldshadow]

Again, playing with words. Isn't having to purchase a gun instead of being given one for free is an infringement?

No nothing the court has said requires you to be given a gun.

It says the right to "keep and bear" arms not the right to free arms.

Integration of words means quite a bit in all our rights.

 

[nac386]

Background investigation, pass a written test of firearms laws, qualify on the weapon, and show that you can handle it safely. It's honestly not that hard, and that's the standard in places like Texas for concealed carry now. I can't see it barring too many people, honestly. I think you'll see more pushback from states like MD and CA that do "may issue" concealed carry licenses versus the states that do "shall issue."

Everybody would freak out if this was proposed. The NRA would oppose it because it further restricts who can own a gun (an organization that is pretty much against any further gun control, they are even against restricting firearms to people on the no-fly list.) The majority of the country would freak out over the idea of adopting anything gun-related from Texas, let alone a law that would greatly increase the number of people carrying guns around.

I just don't think a proposal like that would gain any support. I wouldn't support it because I honestly don't think we should have more people carrying guns around. Like I said, we have hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every single year as it is. Imagine if 10x more people suddenly carried guns on a daily basis. The number of black market guns would be astronomical.

What I would support is anything that would reduce the number of guns on the black market. The police confiscate thousands and thousands of illegal guns just from Chicago each year. Where the hell are those illegal guns coming from?

Reduce the number of guns, don't make it even easier to increase it. They are obviously making their way to the streets in massive numbers.

If we reduce the number of guns going to black market, they actually will run out of illegal guns (or it will be much more difficult to find them) in the cities. The cops confiscate so many of them, we just have to give the cops an opportunity to actually confiscate more than can be replaced.

 

[oldshadow]

That sounds super expensive, like a big hurdle to accessing your 2A rights, and I can't see the obvious benefit to the community. Sorry, man. I just don't see it.

I don't think it should be a requirement to own a firearm and not a requirement but if you want free training you sign up.

I see the local government getting help in the time of need .

It sounds good but you may be right about how workable it is.

 

[Higus]

No nothing the court has said requires you to be given a gun.

It says the right to "keep and bear" arms not the right to free arms.

Integration of words means quite a bit in all our rights.

Question before we go any further: Should someone be able to buy a hand grenade at Walmart, no questions asked?

 

[Falsedawn]

100% with everything you just said. Rights imply responsibility for sure. I said in another thread that I would love to revamp the way the process works. Make a national firearms license where you can travel from state to state with your weapons. All your background checks are done when you get your license, and person-to-person sales require you to each show your license. If you fuck up, you lose your license and can have your firearms confiscated or transferred to a licensed third-party. Getting a license requires you to demonstrate safety, knowledge of firearms laws, show competence by disassembling and reassembling the firearms, and you need to qualify on a pistol and long gun (probably rifle). Once you get your license, you are good to go. If you want automatic weapons or stuff like that, you need to get a Tier 2 license. Same thing, only harder. It seems like a really reasonable way to handle things, but that's me.

Edit: Important omission, but I think the license should also double as a nation-side concealed carry permit.

I've been with you on this topic since you first introduced it, but there would also need to be a registration component involved that wpuld make people balk. Gotta be able to restrict use if need be, just like a car.

That's where I think it would be an uphill battle. It would overall be far more permissive for gun rights, but you gotta sell the gun registry to people.

 

[sub_thug]

Everybody would freak out if this was proposed. The NRA would oppose it because it further restricts who can own a gun (an organization that is pretty much against any further gun control, they are even against restricting firearms to people on the no-fly list.) The majority of the country would freak out over the idea of adopting anything gun-related from Texas, let alone a law that would greatly increase the number of people carrying guns around.

I just don't think a proposal like that would gain any support. I wouldn't support it because I honestly don't think we should have more people carrying guns around. Like I said, we have hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every single year as it is. Imagine if 10x more people suddenly carried guns on a daily basis. The number of black market guns would be astronomical.

What I would support is anything that would reduce the number of guns on the black market. The police confiscate thousands and thousands of illegal guns just from Chicago each year. Where the hell are those illegal guns coming from?

Reduce the number of guns, don't make it even easier to increase it. They are obviously making their way to the streets in massive numbers.

The NRA is also the same group that came out and supported the ban on bump stocks. You'd be surprised what they support. And this is the concealed carry model from Texas, which happens to be one of the strictest in the country. They do this for the purposes of reciprocity with other states. A Texas CHL is good in more states than any other except Utah.

People carrying guns would have them stolen or lost? That just doesn't happen much. It just doesn't. And this wouldn't be a requirement to carry a gun. It's just a license that allows you to do so if you want to.

That's because right now, there is nothing in place. Registering the guns is honestly stupid for a lot of reasons. But if I bust into a dealer's home in Chicago, what makes those guns illegal if he doesn't have a felony conviction or possess automatic weapons? Nothing. Make the guy at least get a license, and if he doesn't, when you raid his home, he's got dozens of felony firearms convictions going against him.

How do you propose controlling the flow of 300 million guns in circulation right now? Keep in mind that they can last hundreds of years with proper maintenance. As is often said, we can't even control the flow of drugs, and those are expendable resources.

 

[oldshadow]

Question before we go any further: Should someone be able to buy a hand grenade at Walmart, no questions asked?

No that's "ordinance".

"Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not."

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

 

[TheGreatA]

What it signals is that the average American is not important enough to have the security of arms.

Only the rich should possess them.

 

[sub_thug]

I've been with you on this topic since you first introduced it, but there would also need to be a registration component involved that wpuld make people balk. Gotta be able to restrict use if need be, just like a car.

That's where I think it would be an uphill battle. It would overall be far more permissive for gun rights, but you gotta sell the gun registry to people.

I just can't imagine anyone on the gun rights side being comfortable with a registry. What I think people would get behind is losing your license (physical confiscation of that license), and if they don't have it, they must transfer their weapons to a licensed third party. If a guy has guns but not a valid license, crush him with felony charges. Bust a black market dealer's home, and he doesn't have a license? My friend, you've just gotten a dude with what's going to end up being a life sentence. You've also removed the guns that are most-commonly used in crimes from the street. That's a huge win. I think that's how you clamp down on the black market, as you're giving teeth to law enforcement to go after the dealers. And by all means, have some sting operations in areas of high illegal weapons (like the south end of Chicago where murders are always happening) where the police officer poses as a buyer and doesn't show his license. Congrats, you just got a perp, and you've given yourself plenty of probable cause to check his home for other weapons.

 

[nac386]

The NRA is also the same group that came out and supported the ban on bump stocks. You'd be surprised what they support. And this is the concealed carry model from Texas, which happens to be one of the strictest in the country. They do this for the purposes of reciprocity with other states. A Texas CHL is good in more states than any other except Utah.

People carrying guns would have them stolen or lost? That just doesn't happen much. It just doesn't. And this wouldn't be a requirement to carry a gun. It's just a license that allows you to do so if you want to.

That's because right now, there is nothing in place. Registering the guns is honestly stupid for a lot of reasons. But if I bust into a dealer's home in Chicago, what makes those guns illegal if he doesn't have a felony conviction or possess automatic weapons? Nothing. Make the guy at least get a license, and if he doesn't, when you raid his home, he's got dozens of felony firearms convictions going against him.

How do you propose controlling the flow of 300 million guns in circulation right now? Keep in mind that they can last hundreds of years with proper maintenance. As is often said, we can't even control the flow of drugs, and those are expendable resources.

Guns are absolutely stolen very often. Between 2005-2010, an average of 232,000 per year from burgulary. That is over 1.4 million guns stolen.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

Those numbers have increased according to everything that I have read recently. I read an article that said it is not between 300,000-600,000 stolen guns per year.

How would I control the flow of guns? Allow law abiding citizens who are willing to pass a licensing test to purchase guns. Continue confiscating and destroying illegal guns, and increase prison sentencing for arms dealers and for possession. Many of the illegal guns in Chicago are supplied by gun shop owners who know exactly where the guns are going.

Only 40% of the guns confiscated in Chicago were bought in Illinois. They buy those guns where the laws are lax, then bring them to Chicago. This is not a meme, this is reality.

The cops confiscate enormous amounts of illegal guns. That would absolutely put a dent in the supply if we would stop haphazardly flooding the market with guns that end up being sold or stolen.

 

[sub_thug]

Guns are absolutely stolen very often. Between 2005-2010, an average of 232,000 per year from burgulary. That is over 1.4 million guns stolen.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

Those numbers have increased according to everything that I have read recently. I read an article that said it is not between 300,000-600,000 stolen guns per year.

How would I control the flow of guns? Allow law abiding citizens who are willing to pass a licensing test to purchase guns. Continue confiscating and destroying illegal guns, and increase prison sentencing for arms dealers and for possession. Many of the illegal guns in Chicago are supplied by gun shop owners who know exactly where the guns are going.

The cops confiscate enormous amounts of illegal guns. That would absolutely put a dent in the supply if we would stop haphazardly flooding the market with guns that end up being sold or stolen.

Your study says that the guns are stolen from people's homes, not the ones that they are carrying on their person. That seems to reinforce my point about concealed carry weapons being lost as an insignificant source of weapons flooding the black market.

Source on gun shop owners knowing that their guns are going into Chicago?

What makes a gun legal versus illegal? I would argue that it's primarily based on the following criteria: A) What the gun is being used for, B) Who has the gun in their possession.

 

[shinkyoku]

Read between the lines: they aren't there to protect him from would be shooters and muggers, they are there to protect PBF from lawsuits.

Worst case they are there to protect against morons who want to "test" him. And for that they do make pretty good walls.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Yea so many celebs are hypocrites, not to mention politicians. But the movie star whose hypocrisy is really burning my ass right now is Robert DeNiro. I've always been a fan of his as he's a great actor. Lately he's been shitting on Trump every time he's interviewed, talking about how he's so terrible, corrupt, not fit to be president, etc. Obviously I have no problem with that. It's his right as an American, and considering how terrible the Trump administration is, it's practically a duty. But what most Americans don't realize is that he has a close business relationship with an absolutely scummy politician who I consider to be the Trump of the Caribbean: PM Gaston Browne of Antigua & Barbuda. I've come to hate DeNiro in recent months as I watch him travel with the Crime Minister out to UAE and places like that trying to get money for "hurricane relief" for Barbuda, which the scumbags in the Antigua Labor Party are using for their own ends. Fucking pos. Trump can obviously do more damage worldwide with the position he holds, but the people of Antigua & Barbuda have much more to lose, particularly Barbudans, from this authoritarian slimeball that DeNiro is so buddy-buddy with. All so he can make money for himself, as if he hasn't made enough in Hollywood over the years. Fuckin hypocritical scumbag pos.

 

[nac386]

Your study says that the guns are stolen from people's homes, not the ones that they are carrying on their person. That seems to reinforce my point about concealed carry weapons being lost as an insignificant source of weapons flooding the black market.

Source on gun shop owners knowing that their guns are going into Chicago?

What makes a gun legal versus illegal? I would argue that it's primarily based on the following criteria: A) What the gun is being used for, B) Who has the gun in their possession.

I just read an article that I will find for you that discusses how a huge amount of guns are stolen from cars. Thousands and thousands. If people are carrying guns there will certainly end up being more stolen from cars.

I am running out for lunch but as soon as I am back at my computer I will source the thing about crooked gun shop owners.

But you can Google any of this pretty easily if you don't want to wait.

 

[Higus]

No that's "ordinance".

"Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not."

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Ok, let's break it into 2 separate questions before continuing:
1) Should a civilian be able to buy, say, a military spec M240 (or some other comparable weapon that would fall under the category of arms), at Walmart, no questions asked?
2) Assuming it was their intention (big assumption, imo), why would the founding fathers make a distinction between arms and ordinance?