Looking for conservative clarification

Started by EHMakeup, January 20, 2013, 04:37:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

EHMakeup

Quote from: Solar on January 20, 2013, 06:38:19 PM
The bigger question is why did the Dims block instant checks if they really are needed?
The Dims had all the power, yet did absolutely nothing to address the issue, could it be there really is no issue at all, that the left is using the death of children as a political football?

If they were serious, why did Reid say he will not bring a weapons Bill to the House?

You see, this really isn't an issue at all, it's merely a means of distraction of the bigger problems facing the Country, and the media played right along and got everyone worked up over absolutely nothing.

I totally disagree here. I understand your sentiment, but just like going back and pointing out all the failures of the Bush administration, doesn't do us any good moving forward. The fact is, right this moment, we have an opportunity to address the issue, in even a small way, why not do something that everyone can agree on, and then get to the next big issue? Lord knows we have enough issues that need to be addressed. If the GOP originally proposed the checks, and the Dems now want it, why not just pass the darn thing, rather then arguing about it for months?

Oh, and Harry Reid is not favorite of mine, but he does have the highest rating of any Dem by the NRA, so I'm not surprised he's refused to bring up a bill.

Solar

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 06:43:31 PM
I totally disagree here. I understand your sentiment, but just like going back and pointing out all the failures of the Bush administration, doesn't do us any good moving forward. The fact is, right this moment, we have an opportunity to address the issue, in even a small way, why not do something that everyone can agree on, and then get to the next big issue? Lord knows we have enough issues that need to be addressed. If the GOP originally proposed the checks, and the Dems now want it, why not just pass the darn thing, rather then arguing about it for months?

Oh, and Harry Reid is not favorite of mine, but he does have the highest rating of any Dem by the NRA, so I'm not surprised he's refused to bring up a bill.
Here's the answer in a nutshell, and it's all because of Reid/politics.

Quote"I don't think Sen. Harry Reid [D-Nev.] even brings it to the Senate floor because he has six Democrats up for election in two years in states where the president received fewer than 42 percent of the votes," Barrasso said. "He doesn't want his Democrats to have to choose between their own constituents and the president's positions."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/Sen-Barrasso-Senate-Vote-on-Obama-Gun-Control-Measures-Unlikely
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Byteryder

Voting is a Right

Keeping and Bearing arms is a Right.

If you don't need an ID to Vote, why do you need an ID to Keep and Bear Arms?

If you don't need a Background check to Vote, why do you need a Background check to Keep and Bear arms.

Disabuse yourself of the most obvious retort.  Far more have died over the recent centuries as a result of "The Vote" than have died as a result of keeping and bearing ams

EHMakeup

Quote from: Byteryder on January 20, 2013, 06:55:50 PM
Voting is a Right

Keeping and Bearing arms is a Right.

If you don't need an ID to Vote, why do you need an ID to Keep and Bear Arms?

If you don't need a Background check to Vote, why do you need a Background check to Keep and Bear arms.

Disabuse yourself of the most obvious retort.  Far more have died over the recent centuries as a result of "The Vote" than have died as a result of keeping and bearing ams

Trust me, I appreciate your sentiment!! There are plenty of guns in my house, and I want to own an AR-15! I get the spirit of the second amendment. However, as times change, we have grow our laws to support societal change. Which is why we have laws disallowing certain people from owning weapons, or voting. We enforce the laws that prevent felons from registering to vote, why shouldn't we enforce the laws that say a weapon cannot be purchasing weapons, and require that seller check something like that?

Shooterman

As the proverbial Old Curmudgeon, I will now give my take. You will not like it, but as my Mom used to tell me 'Tough Dukey'. The first question is simple. Was the seller a license firearms dealer or was he/she a private seller of the firearm. Can't speak for Arizona, but in Texas, as a private individual, I can walk into a gun show, where, BTW, uniformed cops are usually at the door and scattered around the hall or wherever the gun show is held. He/she, will normally make sure the bolt is opened, and a tough plastic tie is ran through and locked in place. The firearm is then inoperable until the tie is cut.No magazines will be in the firearm, either. Then the private seller can walk around the gun show hawking his weapon and if a buyer decides to buy, the money is exchanged and both buyer and seller are happy. The same deal can be done in the parking lot of McDonald's or in a private home. I as a private citizen that does not make a living selling firearms, can however sell legitimately a legal weapon. If a firearm at a gun show is bought from a licensed dealer, you can bet a background check is run.

Now for the fun part. It can never be proven that a background check, no matter how meticulous and intrusive it may be, has ever kept one crazy person or felon from buying a firearm if he/she wants one badly enough. It is an infringement ( if you don't know what that means, look it up ) for any federal law to deprive one individual of the right to keep and bear arms. Those that do so are criminals themselves. The God Given right to protect my life or the life of a loved one or the lives of anyone else, is codified in the Second Amendment which is a declaratory prohibition against the feds depriving the citizens of their lawful right to keep and bear arms.

To put it in a different perspective. you quoted the Violence Policy Center which is one of the most vituperous, vicious, and vitriolic anti-gun groups in America. Formerly it was known, I believe as the Handgun Control Center, then later as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You'll have to do better than that.

If you think any background check will keep weapons from those society says can't have them, which, BTW, is a list that grows by leaps and bounds every day, then you are very foolish.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Byteryder

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 07:02:04 PM
Trust me, I appreciate your sentiment!! There are plenty of guns in my house, and I want to own an AR-15! I get the spirit of the second amendment. However, as times change, we have grow our laws to support societal change. Which is why we have laws disallowing certain people from owning weapons, or voting. We enforce the laws that prevent felons from registering to vote, why shouldn't we enforce the laws that say a weapon cannot be purchasing weapons, and require that seller check something like that?

I have no problem with growing the Law in keeping with the times.  The Constitution made provisions for just that. The Amendment Process.

If we *need* to alter the scope and intent of the Constitutions provisions, then engage the Amendment Process and make those changes Constitutionally.

We are killing ourselves with Politically Expedient solutions when considered, debated, and profund acceptance should rule the choice.


EHMakeup

Quote from: Shooterman on January 20, 2013, 07:19:16 PM
As the proverbial Old Curmudgeon, I will now give my take. You will not like it, but as my Mom used to tell me 'Tough Dukey'. The first question is simple. Was the seller a license firearms dealer or was he/she a private seller of the firearm. Can't speak for Arizona, but in Texas, as a private individual, I can walk into a gun show, where, BTW, uniformed cops are usually at the door and scattered around the hall or wherever the gun show is held. He/she, will normally make sure the bolt is opened, and a tough plastic tie is ran through and locked in place. The firearm is then inoperable until the tie is cut.No magazines will be in the firearm, either. Then the private seller can walk around the gun show hawking his weapon and if a buyer decides to buy, the money is exchanged and both buyer and seller are happy. The same deal can be done in the parking lot of McDonald's or in a private home. I as a private citizen that does not make a living selling firearms, can however sell legitimately a legal weapon. If a firearm at a gun show is bought from a licensed dealer, you can bet a background check is run.

Now for the fun part. It can never be proven that a background check, no matter how meticulous and intrusive it may be, has ever kept one crazy person or felon from buying a firearm if he/she wants one badly enough. It is an infringement ( if you don't know what that means, look it up ) for any federal law to deprive one individual of the right to keep and bear arms. Those that do so are criminals themselves. The God Given right to protect my life or the life of a loved one or the lives of anyone else, is codified in the Second Amendment which is a declaratory prohibition against the feds depriving the citizens of their lawful right to keep and bear arms.

To put it in a different perspective. you quoted the Violence Policy Center which is one of the most vituperous, vicious, and vitriolic anti-gun groups in America. Formerly it was known, I believe as the Handgun Control Center, then later as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You'll have to do better than that.

If you think any background check will keep weapons from those society says can't have them, which, BTW, is a list that grows by leaps and bounds every day, then you are very foolish.

I totally appreciate your point of viewing! Living in Texas myself, I am well aware of the private selling laws in my home state. What I would say, is your right, there should be a better place to find information on gun related crimes. If you have a better resource, I would love to hear it. However, the NRA and the GOP has been blocking any agency from compiling and analyzing any data like that. That's where I take issues. Saying there is no conclusive evidence, when there is no one allowed to compile that information, sounds more like sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen.

My question would be, why do we have laws on the books that say felons can't purchase weapons, but not require private sellers to check the purchasers record? It's seems like there must be a middle ground on this issue. I'm loving this conversation, maybe we can find one right here. Suggestions?  :popcorn:

raptor5618

The solution is not more regulations but longer jail terms for those who get a gun but do not have a legal right to own or posses one.  Punish the criminal not the legal business operator.  We have more than enough laws and one more is not going to change things much except making it more likely that someone who is generally law abiding breaks some obscure regulation.  I really like the comparison to voting and people not allowed to vote still do and yet the Dims go into convulsions if you suggest any common sense rules to keep it from happening.  I agree with many of the posts that all the outrage that some felon might buy a gun and a new law is needed has far more to do with other issues than with stopping a felon from buying a gun.

We could stop all illegal drivers or drunk and impaired drivers by putting a road block at every intersection to run a background check and breath and blood test but it is ridiculous to do such a thing although I am sure it would be close to 100 percent effective.

New York passed strict laws and until they change it the police cannot have more than 7 shots in their clip nor can they have a gun in a school zone.  In a rush to sow how hysterical the dims are they passed a law that is idiotic.  I would bet that not a single officer is in compliance with the law.
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

EHMakeup

Quote from: raptor5618 on January 20, 2013, 08:06:35 PM
The solution is not more regulations but longer jail terms for those who get a gun but do not have a legal right to own or posses one.  Punish the criminal not the legal business operator.  We have more than enough laws and one more is not going to change things much except making it more likely that someone who is generally law abiding breaks some obscure regulation.  I really like the comparison to voting and people not allowed to vote still do and yet the Dims go into convulsions if you suggest any common sense rules to keep it from happening.  I agree with many of the posts that all the outrage that some felon might buy a gun and a new law is needed has far more to do with other issues than with stopping a felon from buying a gun.

We could stop all illegal drivers or drunk and impaired drivers by putting a road block at every intersection to run a background check and breath and blood test but it is ridiculous to do such a thing although I am sure it would be close to 100 percent effective.

New York passed strict laws and until they change it the police cannot have more than 7 shots in their clip nor can they have a gun in a school zone.  In a rush to sow how hysterical the dims are they passed a law that is idiotic.  I would bet that not a single officer is in compliance with the law.

The only people who would be impacted by requiring a background check, is private sellers. If your selling a firearm privately, what is the hurry with selling it? Would the inconvenience of waiting a few days really mean that much? Legal business owners already require a background check, or should, and if they don't, that law should be enforced. I'm also all for empowering states to decide what works best for their states in reducing gun violence. However, the fact doesn't change, that every state has a gun problem, in one capacity or another. It's possible that there might be a middle ground that cool heads could come to, if everyone could stop the blame game. What's wrong with one side putting it's suggestions on the table, and asking that the other side put something on the table. If the other side doesn't put anything on the table, and acts like there isn't a problem at all, what good does it do?

Byteryder

Personally I would have no problem holding the seller criminally responsible for selling a gun to anyone legally barred from owning a gun.  First offense a Misdemeanor, second offense an Felony.

On the over all case of "Gun Violence", In my opinion the target here is Violence, not Guns.  It is the Violent act, be it fists, 2x4s, knife, tire iron, whatever.. that is the harmful and or lethal aspect of such unacceptable interaction between people.  Violence, from whatever justification, executed by whatever means, is what needs to be addressed.

We must find a way o stop accepting the unacceptable and stop tolerating the intolerable.  Offensive Violence is unacceptable and intolerable.

EHMakeup

Quote from: Byteryder on January 20, 2013, 08:19:54 PM
Personally I would have no problem holding the seller criminally responsible for selling a gun to anyone legally barred from owning a gun.  First offense a Misdemeanor, second offense an Felony.

On the over all case of "Gun Violence", In my opinion the target here is Violence, not Guns.  It is the Violent act, be it fists, 2x4s, knife, tire iron, whatever.. that is the harmful and or lethal aspect of such unacceptable interaction between people.  Violence, from whatever justification, executed by whatever means, is what needs to be addressed.

We must find a way o stop accepting the unacceptable and stop tolerating the intolerable.  Offensive Violence is unacceptable and intolerable.

Totally agree with you on all of that!! The only thing I would ask, is could you work on all of the things you mentioned, along side working to enforce the current gun laws not currently being enforce effectively?

Shooterman

Quote from: EHMakeup on January 20, 2013, 07:55:44 PM
I totally appreciate your point of viewing! Living in Texas myself, I am well aware of the private selling laws in my home state. What I would say, is your right, there should be a better place to find information on gun related crimes. If you have a better resource, I would love to hear it. However, the NRA and the GOP has been blocking any agency from compiling and analyzing any data like that. That's where I take issues. Saying there is no conclusive evidence, when there is no one allowed to compile that information, sounds more like sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen.

My question would be, why do we have laws on the books that say felons can't purchase weapons, but not require private sellers to check the purchasers record? It's seems like there must be a middle ground on this issue. I'm loving this conversation, maybe we can find one right here. Suggestions?  :popcorn:

There is no middle ground. The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about any ifs, ands, or buts. Deep fry his ass or restore his rights.

Here is a suggestion that would work; if a felon can be trusted to re enter society, then restore each and every one of his rights including the right to keep and bear arms. If he can not be trusted, then lock his ass away for ever or until he dies which ever comes first. Violent criminals- put the smack in their veins and send them to hell. Upon conviction, one all encompassing appeal, then the Big Drip. No sympathy for a violent bastard, no letting the sumbich languish on the tax payers dime for the rest of his miserable life. Make executions public on national TV. Fokk 'em.

As for stats. One thing is for sure. Those bastards that wish to deny me of my right to keep and bear arms will lie, cheat, steal, suck Obambam's ass, and/or anything else they can do. It is not now, has never been, and will never be about gun control. It is about people control. Once the right is gone, so are the rest of your freedoms. Keep in mind one other simple little fact, as well. There is no such animal as 'GUN VIOLENCE'. Have you ever seen a gun commit violence? If you have, you could be the wealthiest person in the world because you would have seen what no one else has ever seen.

There is no middle ground. I am endowed by my Maker, with the right to keep and bear arms. If you try to infringe upon that right in any shape, form, or fashion, you automatically become my enemy.

There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Byteryder

I don't really find deep problems with most current restrictions.

I don't care for restrictions that are meaningless and "feel good" in nature.  Example, "assault rifle" indicators, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, pistol grips.  None of these have anything to do with the lethality of the weapon.  Magazine capacity is effectively meaningless.

No mention is made of Shotguns.  Every time you pop off a 12 GA. 000 Buck, you put out about 5 lethal projectiles of .38 caliber, each fully capable of killing or seriously injuring someone.  10 rounds of 12 GA. 000 Buck ..thats 50 lethal projectiles.  No one complains of the Shotgun, yet in a short range event, it is far more lethal than a semiautomatic rifle or pistol.

There just seems to be no common sense applied to our law making process.  Not just on the issue of Guns, but in general.

EHMakeup

Quote from: Shooterman on January 20, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
There is no middle ground. The Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about any ifs, ands, or buts. Deep fry his ass or restore his rights.

Here is a suggestion that would work; if a felon can be trusted to re enter society, then restore each and every one of his rights including the right to keep and bear arms. If he can not be trusted, then lock his ass away for ever or until he dies which ever comes first. Violent criminals- put the smack in their veins and send them to hell. Upon conviction, one all encompassing appeal, then the Big Drip. No sympathy for a violent bastard, no letting the sumbich languish on the tax payers dime for the rest of his miserable life. Make executions public on national TV. Fokk 'em.

As for stats. One thing is for sure. Those bastards that wish to deny me of my right to keep and bear arms will lie, cheat, steal, suck Obambam's ass, and/or anything else they can do. It is not now, has never been, and will never be about gun control. It is about people control. Once the right is gone, so are the rest of your freedoms. Keep in mind one other simple little fact, as well. There is no such animal as 'GUN VIOLENCE'. Have you ever seen a gun commit violence? If you have, you could be the wealthiest person in the world because you would have seen what no one else has ever seen.

There is no middle ground. I am endowed by my Maker, with the right to keep and bear arms. If you try to infringe upon that right in any shape, form, or fashion, you automatically become my enemy.

There is also nothing in the constitution that says that the supreme court gets to determine the constitutionality of laws passed through congress, but I'm personally glad they do. The fourth amendment requires government to have a warrant to search your belonging, and yet there are plenty of loopholes to allow law enforcement to do it anyway. The point is, we don't follow the constitution to the letter, because it wasn't designed to be used that way. I understand the spirit of the second amendment, to ensure that the people always have the ability and the resource to over throw a tyrannical government. I just think it's a bit dramatic to infer that any regulation at all on gun ownership and sales, is the work of "the enemy". I think it's possible to discuss the issue, with cool heads. I like guns, there's one sitting less then 5 feet from me. I'm just advocating that responsible gun ownership be mandatory, rather then on the honor system.

walkstall

Number 1 most all laws are made to make people feel good.  Number 2 most all laws are for collecting money.  Number 3 most all laws are to keep Government in power.  Number 4 most all laws keep attorney in money.


If ticket # 1 was for 500 $ and ticket #2 was 10.000 $ then ticket Number 3 was for 50.000  $.    Do you think speeding would drop off? 



I am with Shooter.  If your going to break the law be ready to pay the full consequences.







A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."