How much longer do I have?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=178793
Printed Date: 18 November 2024 at 2:27am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How much longer do I have?
Posted By: bishopisback
Subject: How much longer do I have?
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:50am
|
I am looking to buy a handgun. With our newly elected president I hear gun laws will change. How much longer do I have to be able to get one? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:55am
|
No way of knowing. I'd apply sooner rather than later.
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:55am
|
Yeah, we've never covered the Obama is a gun grabber issue here....
His only interest in gun control legislation is closing the trade show convention loophole. Buy away. Dems aren't dumb enough and don't have enough support to piss away their majority by mobilizing the progun faction of America. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:57am
|
[QUOTE=bishopisback] How much longer do I have to be.... QUOTE]
What kinda gun store did you go to?! ------------- My shoes of peace have steel toes. |
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:00am
|
Stop clinging to your guns you damn redneck.
------------- 
|
Posted By: bishopisback
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:03am
|
I have been looking around at local shops. I have settled on a Walther P99. -------------
|
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:14am
|
As mentioned, his only real aim towards gun laws is making guns purchased at trade shows slightly more trackable. Otherwise his website even says that he is pro-owning guns. ------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg - |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:14am
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
bishopisback wrote:Posted By: You Wont See Me
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:25am
|
Why can't people do their own research instead of believing "what they heard" obama is going to do?
------------- A-5 E-Grip JCS Dual Trigger DOP X-CORE 8 stage x-chamber Lapco Bigshot 14" Beadblasted Optional setup: R/T Dead on Blade trigger |
Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:30am
Because unless we talk to Obama ourselves, all we can do is research what other people "heard" ------------- http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site 
|
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 7:57am
| *Waits for Pelosi |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 8:39am
|
Obama can't to anything about the gun laws for the moment. The Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right. He also knows that if he passes any gun control legislation, his chances of being reelected in 4 years become narrower. Gun control was not an issue in this campaign (as it was in the past) because neither Obama McCain were particularly friendly to gun owner's rights. The most he can do is to appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court (how can they be "liberal" when they try to take away a right?), and even if he does, it's very unlikely that they'll reverse the Court's earlier decision. As for the gun show "loophole", it's not a loophole at all. Citizens who legally own firearms are allowed to sell them to others without government infringement. If the buyer is not legally able to buy a gun, it is he who is committing a crime, not the seller. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 8:46am
|
Obama is not going to take your guns away.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 8:51am
That sounds like a loophole to me. If you can go to a gunshow and buy a gun when it is illegal for you to do so, without the same regulations as a gun store how is it not a loophole? Holy bad grammar batman^ ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:11am
|
put in your application now, depending an what stateand county you are in, it could take as long as 6 months.
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: ctchofday
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:25am
|
Id be more worried about buying ammo not guns... he cant take away your guns... but he could jack up the taxes on ammo. and the P99s are very nice guns, we owned a PPKS chambered for .380 and it was an amazing little gun. I wish we handnt traded it for the .38 revolver, atleast its a double action. ------------- Xbl:PhantomReign97 
'99 Snpr II, ½d Karni, E-Orracle, 2k4 Spstk, 2k5 Prstk, PMR SE, A5, 98 |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:32am
The buyer still has to undergo and pass a background check. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:38am
I thought they didn't, therefore nothing wrong with buying guns at a gun show. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 9:49am
|
I actually go to gun shows, and buy guns. New gun, you do the background check, and the gun is registered. I bought a smith and wesson 9mm conceal carry gun this spring. Got it in less than 15 minutes at a gun show. Used gun, pay cash, walk away. I also bought a used 20 guage shotgun at the same show. Handed over the $120. and walked away. That is in Ohio. I prefer no paper trail. When the government knows you have guns, they have proven that they will come take them... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:03am
|
I live in NY and it has been some time since I purchased a rifle at a gun show, so things may have changed. this is how it use to work, dealers have FFL's and cell phones on their person, you fill out the proper forms to purchase a rifle, he calls usually the county PD HQ, who runs your driver lic # and SS # to see if you have any legal issues past or present that would deny you the purchase. this can take any where between 1 min to several hours. that would be dependant on computer traffic and purchase traffic, I believe your information gets crossed reference with the state and county police and FBI. If everything comes back good, you pay for it and walk out. Hand guns are a different story all together here and requires you going with the purchase documents to PD HQ to the pistol lic. bureau, present the reciept, pay te PD Lic bureau there cut ($5 for each handgun) and they put it on your lic. and give you the clearance document, you go back to the dealer, give him his copies, you keep your copies and you now completed your purchase of a hand gun. If You have a pistol lic. and want to purchase a rifle in Suffolk county/NY state, all you need to do is present it and purchase is approved after you fill out the paper work. whew! ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:09am
In a free society, an individual is responsible for his own actions, isn't he? And are we not presumed innocent unless proven otherwise? The burden of proof belongs to the government, not the individual. Like it or not, gun ownership is now a "right", having been officially defined as such. Should background checks and forms be required before we are allowed to exercise our other rights? Think about it. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:12am
That's not necessarily true. I can't buy a gun from one of the dealers without the background check, but I can sell to or buy from another private individual at a gun show without filling out any forms or submitting to a background check. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:14am
Gun ownership is a right. A right which many people abuse. If people that want guns have to fill out forms and wait a while to keep less guns in the hands of criminals(I'm not naive I know there are other ways to get them) or people who may use them then so be it. Big deal, you have to wait to blow holes in paper, or shoot animals that there is absolutely no reason to shoot. For the record, I like guns. Just to get that out of the way. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:17am
|
OUTTA MA COLD DEAD HANS Anyway I'm a gun owner. And a liberal. Go figure. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:22am
WHAAAAT?? You've thrown my entire conception of reality for a spinning loop that I'll likely not recover from for some time. ------------- ? |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:34am
To quote old common law "the misuse of (your choice of rights here) does not abrogate the lawful use thereof". ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:43am
Nicely put jmac. with one addition, mandatory Fire arms safety course. I have nearly been killed by some jack ass who doesn't get the concept of fire arm safety. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:44am
|
How do you abuse the Right to bear arms? By buying 200 guns? how does that harm anyone?
Now the Freedom of Press I belive has been abused when Newspapers and Media outlets endorce political candidates and plaster their faces and run select stories about X candidate and send dirt digging teams arround to dig dirt on candidates to sway the votes of people and move them to their point of view. I think that it should be illegal for media outlets who are souposed to be neutral reporting entities to endorce any character. Since peple are raised to belive that you can trust what the newspapers or news report. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:56am
You're dumb. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:02am
Clearly the point of gun laws is to prevent the unmonitored transfer of firearms. Closing this loophole just brings it into the fold, it doesn't prevent you from owning firearms. I am all for tracking firearms and, if it comes to it, ammunition. However, I am against any sort of unreasonable taxation on firearms--while that doesn't mean they can't be taxed more, I do think that it is a right to own them, and making ammo difficult to by violates that right.
ROFL freakin' quaffle.
I agree. I also think that those guns should all be registered, so if someone gets shot with one, the police have a paper trail to put together their case.
Negative. No where does it say that newspapers must be unbiased. It's up to the American people to decide what is true or false, and to analyze what they hear. If you can't pull that off...well, you're in the boat with at least 50% of Americans. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:05am
So you need your gun so badly that you can't deal with a little bit of regulation and paperwork helping to keep them out of the hands of wrong people? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:06am
What media? News is entertainment. It's all about selling. Circulation, ratings, advertisement revenue, etc. Journalism has never been objective, and I think those who report the news feel some sort of guilt or disgust for themselves, and vent it by personally identifying themselves as "defenders of the defenseless". In short, they become liberals. They are products of their upbringing (pampered), and their universities (needs no explanation). Their point of view is predictable and lamentable. They hate being part of a money hungry corporation, and express their angst the only way they are able. Yes, they got their man elected this time. I'm curious to see the results. I sincerely wish Obama the best, but I'm rather glad that I live in Japan now. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:09am
By shooting people in the face? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Enmity
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:12am
Not everyone who owns guns is going to shoot people, it's the people who illegally own guns that are going to shoot people and commit crimes. As for the application, put it in right away, because as said it could take up to 6 months. That's why I love Pennsylvania, my dad walked in to a gun store, put in his application, 48 hours later received a call that he was ready to go, bought his gun and walked out. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:16am
|
In Ohio, I walked into a gun store, filled out the form, and walked out with a gun.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:21am
To quote: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This is not ambiguous language. It is simple and straightforward. This is no less a right than any other you have. If you can regulate or abolish this right, then you can lose any of the others just as easily. "The pen is mightier than the sword" they say, but a pen needs a sword to defend itself. As you mentioned before, guns will fall into the wrong hands regardless of the law. Guns are illegal in Mexico, but thousands have been shot this year, have they not? I live in Japan, which has some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, but guns can still be found here. America is not a democracy or a collective. It is a republic where individual rights are held the most precious. It means that individuals are responsible for their own actions, good or bad. But it also means that the rights of individuals will not be infringed upon because of the actions of a few. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:27am
Thanks Captain Obvious. That doesn't mean a criminal who has never been convicted of a crime, but arrested, couldn't buy a gun.(I am not sure about this). I think being arrested for most crimes(I am not writing a bill so I am not getting specific) should disqualify you from gun use. I think they should check mental health records to qualify you for gun use. People that aren't criminals but own guns can still commit a crime. I also know that none of this foolproof, criminals will still get illegal guns, people may go crazy that never showed any signs of doing so. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:30am
|
Traveler, people like you tend to leave out the rest of that amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:33am
Ooops. Too late. There is a clear modern precedent for regulation. This loophole is just that, a loophole in the modern precedent. Stop quoting the Constitution in a way that is clearly not the modern interpretation.
I'm not sure I buy that. But given the modern state of America, I will acquiesce to it.
So clearly regulation to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands (Virginia Tech, anyone? Someone forgot to check a database and people got killed. OK, that may not be the whole story, but the point stands.), and to allow the police to prosecute the owners/users when guns are used in crimes is stupid? Please, do tell.
Bull-poopy. There's regulation in business, there's regulation in education; this is just about regulation. Learn to be regulated like everyone else. Your rights as an individual are earned, whether you like it or not. Whether you have a drivers license, a firearms license, a high school or college diploma, you have to earn that right, even if only by age. "Born free and equal" my butt. Note: not all curses are made equal. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:36am
If you are ever convicted of a felony, charged with domestic violence, or are declared mentally incompetent, then you are prohibited from owning a gun. In some states, it is illegal to share medical information, including information about mental competency. More often than not, if you are ever declared mentally incompetent, no law enforcement agency will be able to find out unless they petition the state where the records are held. If you are ever found by the police to be in possession of a gun, they will do a check to see if any of the above apply. If they do, then you'll be arrested, and the gun confiscated. I like Florida's law, known as 10, 20, life. If you use a gun in a crime, you get 10 years in prison, period. If you shoot someone, you'll do 20 years to life. There is no early release, parole, or good time. As they say in the ad, "use a gun, and you're done". ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:39am
Thank you for proving my points. Read from my post what I put in red. Criminals get out of convictions on some petty nonsense. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:46am
He's done nothing of the sort.
Do tell. Clearly holding the mentally incompetent accountable is the answer here.
Medical privacy is a huge concern in this country. Trust me, my mom writes privacy legislation for an insurance company, and it is not petty stuff. Until companies can legally disclose information to state/federal authorities, which would require either rewriting or removal of legislation (most of which does protect health care providers and users), this isn't going to change. But at the same time, it is far from the most pressing issue. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:48am
The constitution is rather simple, and does not require "interpretation". It's written in simple English that anyone with a high school education can read without the help of a lawyer. It's the laws which are perpetually passed by the legislature in purposefully vague language which require interpretation. Obtaining a drivers license is not, and never has been a right. It is defined as a privilege, and as such, is subject to regulation and fees. The constitution contains the bill of rights, which, as rights, are not subject to regulation. But the constitution does give the states (and federal government) the ability to regulate other matters, such as commerce, trade, taxes, etc. It's all available online if you want to look at it. Everyone is born equal. However, that moment is very brief. Before long you become a product of your environment, upbringing, and ambition. In time some become more equal than others, to quote Orwell. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:52am
But you seem to forget that just this year the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment did in fact state that the "people have a right to keep and bear arms". I can post the decision and the arguments for you if you wish. On second thought, I'll post it now. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:52am
|
I own firearms, including handguns, and I voted for Barack Obama.
For some reason I am not strikingly afraid and paranoid that anything is really going to change about my gun ownership status. Then again, I am not insane either. Go figure. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:53am
The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to read this from you. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:55am
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:56am
I can think of many more reasons they might be disappointed. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:56am
I am well aware of what the supreme court decided. It doesn't change what the amendment actually states, and the whole beginning most Pro-gun people leave out. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:57am
|
I figure I will triple post and weigh in on my stance on guns.
We need a better understanding and culture of gun control in America. I am a believer that this laissez-faire attitude when it comes to controlling firearms is one, but not the only one mind you, of the contributing factors of our high crime and murder rate. Guns are far too easy to produce and obtain, and sadly people don't take care of their firearms like they should. A large majority of guns that find themselves in the hands of criminals were ones purchased for a home on the thought of some sort of "home protection," and then stolen from the home. People need to be careful. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:01pm
Ok, but that is not the point. You just said that the document that they took arms up for, and fought and died for the ability to write and enforce, wasn't really worth working to interpret because it is good enough at face value. Some of the best and brightest our country ever had struggled to make that constitution. The least we can do is work to understand the context and intent of their ink on paper. |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:09pm
Because it is the fundamental part. How many laws have you researched? How many have similar headings? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Since there has been some question about the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment, it was finally "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to say what it always said, that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Where does it say that the "well regulated militia" are those who have the right to bear arms? Can you point that part out to me? I don't see it written anywhere... ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:10pm
|
Wow, the ignorance in this thread has me flabbergasted....
1) Why should the government have any right to force you to register your firearms? Do they force you to register your knives? How about baseball bats, hammers, and other blunt force trauma inducing objects? No, they do not. It is no easier to kill the average unarmed person with any of these than it is with a firearm. 2) Why should the seller be held responsible for the buyer's actions? Do we hold Auto companies or car dealerships responsible for the actions of their customers? More people are killed in car accidents every year than in incidents involving firearms, but you don't see a 3 day waiting period to buy an automobile. You don't even have to have a driver's license to buy a car. As a private seller you don't have to inform the state that you have sold a car or to whom other than to turn in your plates and sign the back of the title. The impetus to obtain and use the car legally and to abide by all laws is on the purchaser. 3) The NICS works. After the VT shootings, people tried to say that the NICS didn't work as the shooter at VA Tech purchased his firearms from dealers who used the NICS. However, it was the fault of the state and federal governments by not registering his name and SSN with the NICS when he had been appointed by the court to attend mental health counseling. Had the governments which enacted the laws actually followed their own laws, the shootings could have been prevented. 4) The so-called "Loophole" at gun shows is simply an expansion of the provisions in place for private sellers. If you are a license holder, you MUST keep records of who you buy and sell from. However, individuals do not need to do so as long as they are not buying and selling as a significant form of business. In short, you may not purchase firearms with the sole intent of selling them without a dealer's license. C&R holders are allowed to do so, but are not allowed to do it in a volume that would constitute a business-only transaction of said firearms. 5) No enactment of firearms restrictions since the implementation of the 1934 NFA have ever been shown through any scientifically derived data to have any effect on violent crime. 6) The vast majority of illegally obtained (read: purchased by persons who are not legally allowed to obtain firearms) are sold to them through illicit vendors. i.e. the trunk of a '64 caddy on the corner of Ghetto Lane and Gangland Drive. No amount of hoops to jump through will ever solve this. Rather the strict adherence to the principals set forth in the NFA of 1934 and increased punishment for violators of said act. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:11pm
Read it yourself. I can send you a link if you like. If there are any parts you are having difficulty with, I'd be happy to help. To elaborate. The founding fathers were great men, but they thought of themselves as ordinary. The language which they used was also ordinary (for the times). The constitution was a document that could be read by laymen of the time, and it should be understandable to any reasonably educated person now. It's not that long, and it's not that complicated. It's written with black ink on white paper, and it's principles are just as clearly contrasted. The truth does not need interpretation, it can be seen for what it is. As I stated before, it is later laws which are those which require interpretation. Laws which have, through fine print and vague language, turned black and white into various shades of gray. Laws which claim to be within the boundaries set by the constitution, but worded so vaguely or densely that laymen (and many lawyers) cannot determine their constitutionality easily, if at all. To further elaborate. Decisions are often made by other courts on these later laws, sometimes affirming them, sometimes overthrowing them. But the difficulty arrives when people (judges and lawyers) begin interpreting these laws to satisfy their personal views, selecting laws which suit their particular shade of gray, as a way of getting around the strict guidelines set in the constitution. This has been done to the second amendment many times, but the argument about the wording of the amendment itself has only been seen as confusing to laymen, and not to anyone with a basic understanding of law. Rather than confront the wording of the amendment itself, these vague and copious laws have been written as a way of circumventing it. Later gun control laws used previously unchallenged laws as a form of precedent, and with the Supreme Court always reluctant to hear any cases regarding the second amendment, people began to take it's meaning as a right less seriously. For better or worse (like all other things in life), the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:15pm
|
THIS will be interesting. ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:21pm
Yes it was interpreted, and I can't argue that. I am just saying why else would that line be in the amendment? Even before it was interpreted by the supreme court people left out the militia line. Also, Tallen guns should be more heavily regulated because they are TOOLS MADE FOR DEATH. A knife while originally made as a weapon has many other uses these days(as you should know). A bat while evolved from a club is now in main use of a very popular sport, not for killing things. Automobiles were NEVER made as weapons to kill people with. Guns were, and still are mainly made to kill other people with. They could be used to shoot paper, they could be used to shoot clay, or they could be used to KILL animals that really have no need to be killed(that is another argument). I am not saying the gun dealer should be held responsible for the buyer's actions. I am saying that it should be ALOT harder for people to purchase guns. Noone said anything about the statement I made about people that have merely been arrested should be barred from having guns. I don't see why regulation is such a bad thing. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:29pm
Yes, they are weapons made for death. There is no argument there. But weapons which cause death also prevent it. The main principle surrounding maintaining an Army isn't to cause war, but to prevent it. In the majority of cases of firearms used in self defense, the firearm is never fired. The sight of a gun being pointed at you is usually enough to cause you to have second thoughts. The threat is more often a deterrent than the act. The Supreme Court went on to say that the right to self defense was also fundamental. In 1992 I lived in Southern California. Do you remember the riots? For nearly 2 days 911 did not work. If you needed help, the police would not come. About 1/3 of the buildings in my neighborhood were looted and burned. I've owned a gun ever since. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:30pm
|
wow, dident take long for this thread to go in the crapper. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:44pm
I believe you said you're in Japan.
Source: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html - http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html Who has stricter laws regarding guns? I believe you said Japan? EDIT: HIGHLIGHT THE TABLE TO READ IT ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 12:58pm
Yes, I live in Japan. I also have a home in Florida, and another in Texas. It is almost 3 am here as I write. It is true that there are few firearms or firearms related deaths in Japan, but then there is very little other crime either. You can't forget that Japan is a very monocultural society (less than 1% of the population here is made up of foreigners). The suicide rate is pretty interesting. You would probably be interested to know that the per capita suicide rate here is far higher than it is in America, but not having guns has not had any impact. People tend to jump in front of trains, or off of bridges and buildings. There's also a recipe for poison gas on the internet which has become very popular. Why don't you post the firearms related deaths in Mexico vs the US for this year? Firearms are more legal in Japan than they are in Mexico, believe it or not. I think the city of Juarez alone has seen a few thousand shootings this year (2008) with more than 1000 dead. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:05pm
|
Mexico, really?
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:11pm
|
Jmac, the day I trust my full safety and well being to the police is the day that I die.
I live in a major metropolitan area with one of the largest and well maintained police forces in the nation. Response time to a 911 emergency call involving an armed man breaking into a residence two blocks from my old house was greater than 5 minutes. The perp had time to stab the couple living in the apartment to death and exfiltrate. He broke in to steal their jewelry to buy drugs. Anyone who breaks into my house is going to get a hole blown in them big enough to read their obit through. Also, pulling facts from a gun-control website is like me pulling facts from an NRA website. Find a non-biased source for your numbers. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:21pm
First part, I didn't say you should rely solely on police. Don't say everyne has guns for self defense when in reality most people have to shoot targets and animals. Second part. If I was getting paid for my time, I might look for real sources. Whatever google brings up is good enough for me at the moment. EDIT: I am also not arguing that guns should be taken away. My argument is that getting them should more heavily regulated. Also, illegal guns should come with much stiffer penalties. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:44pm
Maybe you should take a look at this before saying anything needs to be "tougher." http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm - http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:47pm
I'm not going to read it, but answer me this. Do arrests(not convictions) disqualify you from owning a gun? Does mental health disqualify you from owning a gun? How about drug tests to buy a gun? Sure it may sound extreme, but that is what I think should be done. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 1:59pm
What have arrest have anything to do with gun ownership???? You can get arrested for looking like some guy who just knocked off the 7-11 down the street. Getting arrested doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong necessarily, and it shouldn't affect your ability to legally own a firearm. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 2:11pm
If you read what I said earlier, MANY criminals get out of convictions for petty reasons. That means they would only have an arrest. It should affect your ability to legally own a firearm ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 2:14pm
|
How many times am I going to have to say this? The laws currently in place in the United States are designed to ensure that firearms are registered and traceable. This loophole allows circumvention of those laws. It does not make it easier to own a firearm, it does not prepare you for when zombies attack, and it is not hindering your Constitutional right to bear arms. You can still own guns. Buy all the guns you want. But the point is that if a gun is used in a crime, it can now be traced to you. This loophole is simply a way to cripple law enforcement. It's stupid, and it ought to be removed. If you really disagree with that, then I have nothing more to say here.
You are a total idiot. You clearly have no clue what people get arrested for. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 2:38pm
that is one of the worst rationalizations i have ever heard. i hate to break it to you, but in this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 2:40pm
Then you've just proven yourself an ignorant fool who refuses to look at the facts. Owning a firearm is a right not to be infringed upon by anyone or any entity. The same rules apply to owning firearms that apply to voting, the freedom of the press, etc. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 2:47pm
Serious on that link? No doubt a post by you. ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 2:53pm
|
I was kinda agreeing with you (kinda...) until this little bit right here. I mean really? The only thing that arrests do are bring SUSPECTS into the station. There are a multitude of innocent people arrested on suspicion just as there many are felons that get away. You really think it's a good idea to deny an innocent citizen his rights on suspicion? Wow. And I HATE getting involved in political debates... ------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 3:09pm
Your just jealous because your gun laws suck. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 3:15pm
Question: Would you shoot anyone caught breaking into your house? What if they were leaving? ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 4:11pm
WOW, is that some twisted logic. I understand what you are saying. Criminals can get away with crimes sometimes. That's why cops have rules and have to follow them to the letter of the law. BUT, what you are saying is that the mere PRESUMPTION of guilt should be enough to deny people of the rights and privileges of citizenship. This is why we have the court system. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 4:16pm
|
You know, you can get denied the sale of a fire arm for an outstanding/unpaid ticket. I have seen that happen at my local gun shop.
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 4:49pm
You may call me an ignorant fool, but I do not care. In this thread, I have said nothing about regulating the ownership of firearms, or what they are used for. My argument is solely on making it tougher to get them.
Also refer to the bottom of my post. The court system is a very flawed system. Also off topic. Cops should not to follow some petty rules to arrest someone for a crime. I am not saying they should be able to shoot people and kick people's heads in. I am saying people should not be going home free because some cop didn't have a warrant to search, but found something illegal.
No I don't think it is necessarily a good idea. Refer to the last part of my post.
Is that a joke? I'm pretty sure I know why people get arrested
Yes it is a horrible rationalization. People can be innocent until proven guilty all they want. I didn't say what I said was perfect. There could be ways to work around it. Say find a way to see what people were arrested for, and why they got off. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:00pm
|
It doesn't matter why people get arrested. It only matters whether they get convicted or not. I mean, you could get arrested for child molestation or murder, because you happen to be near the scene of a crime, and are driving the same car that the suspect is driving.
You'd get arrested, taken in for ID and questioning, and right away they'd realize that you weren't the guy they were looking for, and release you. Would you want a permanent mark on your record for that? I understand that what I mentioned is not what you are talking about, but it's all the same in the language of the law. The court system may be flawed, but it is all we've got. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:02pm
|
Jmac, serious question. How would you make the laws tougher for honest citizens to purchase fire arms? enjoy the weekend everyone, I am off to the range, I'm practicing for my first shoot/match in nearly 4 years.. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:03pm
and what do you think making firearms tougher to get would be, if its not regulation?
Just making the assumption for one second that is true - shouldnt we reform the court system rather then the gun control system?
so your advocating eliminating laws protecting us from unwarrented police actions? and i thought the patriot act was bad...
i'm pretty sure that was not a joke, because people get arrested in situations where they did absolutly nothing wrong, or over things as trivial as an upaid parking ticket...
as i said before - assuming there is something wrong with the court system, it is the court system that needs to change, not the gun control system. and punishing someone who is not held guilty is absurd. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:05pm
The day I become a cop, lawyer, judge, or gun store owner I will answer that question. Just because I can't answer it doesn't mean it's not possible. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:13pm
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:14pm
|
i agree with some points in this thread, but now its just funny to watch you all bicker. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:25pm
while i can certainly see where you are coming from, i'm afraid its just simply not that easy, as the laws that protect individuals freedoms from unjust invasions of privacy are the same ones that protect those drug dealers from unwarranted searches. setting up a perfect system that respects individual freedoms and privacies while not allowing anyone to get away with something is probably impossible, and while our system may fall short of perfect, there are perfectly good reasons why it is set up the way that it is. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 5:26pm
I think people should stop being such pansies. I know I can handle some cop screwing with me for 5 minutes, because I know I did nothing wrong. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 6:25pm
i've had my vehical searched before - several times, i consented every time. being stopped and searched for legitimate concerns doesnt frighten me, its the power that repealing those laws would give to individuals who may or may not always have legitimate concerns that becomes a problem. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:07pm
I would fire upon anyone that I perceived as a threat to the well being of myself or my family.
Really? Because I think you just said something about regulating the ownership of firearms for innocent people:
You've shown your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to purchasing firearms Jmac. For instance, question 12e states: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, Marijuana, any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance" Question 12f states: "Have you ever been adjucated mentally defective (which includes having been adjucated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Question 12h states: "Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or intimate partner, or a child of such partner?" Question 12i states: "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? All of these are covered in the NCIS instant background check. That should answer your mental health, drug use, and other questions. Answering any of these questions falsely is a felony offense. By throwing more bureaucracy at the issue of gun control, all we do is make it that much easier for people to slip through the cracks. An excellent example is the Virginia Tech shooter. He was admitted to a mental institution by court order. However, the bureaucracy of the court system failed to post this information to the NCIS database and he slipped through. Making the system even more complicated by compiling the massive arrest records, drug test results, and other limitations you would wish to put on the system would ultimately lead to many more errors where law abiding citizens would be denied their rights to bear arms while criminals would be allowed to slip through. Instead of standing on your soap box spouting rhetoric, you should sit down with a National Rifle Association representative or BATF officer and get the straight facts. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:30pm
|
Heh - funny joke. Oh, you were serious? Good lord. Anyway - constitutional interpretation aside - allow me to remind you that there is a giant difference between what you think the law ought to be, and what the law actually IS. Telling a court how you think the law ought to be will not be a particularly effective defense. For this reason I encourage everybody to remember that the NRAILA does not actually tell you the law, but only give you wishful thinking. Do not confuse law with philosophy ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:32pm
|
isent what the law is?? that you can only shoot if you feel the person is a threat to yourself or property? ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 10:52pm
That depends on whether your state is a "Castle Doctrine" state or not. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:11pm
Exactly what is law based upon? Principle? Virtue? Philosophy? Laws are based on a little of each. Our founding fathers were nothing if not profound philosophers. As I stated previously, the constitution does not take a scholar to "interpret". We do not interpret the intent of the constitution, it's rather self explanatory. You can see for yourself: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html But we do spend a lot of time interpreting laws and regulations passed since the constitution was ratified. Special interests and ideologues have used language to bend the constitution to their will over the last two centuries. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 07 November 2008 at 11:37pm
|
BASED ON, yes - same as, no. Breaking a law gets you thrown in jail. Breaking a philosophy gets you a heated argument.
Alrightythen. To take the subject matter of this particular thread:
I see a right to "keep and bear arms." I see nothing about guns. Therefore, you have no rights to guns. Simple. Obvious. Unless, of course, you want to "interpret" the word "arms" to mean "weapons, including guns". But fine - we'll go with that. Now I want to wear my suicide bomber belt to your dinner party. You tell me that you a strict policy against suicide bomber belts in your house. I declare that you just violated my consitutional rights, by infringing my rights to keep and bear my "arms." Obvious, right? ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 12:13am
|
oh man, I love constitutional debates.
This could get interesting. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 12:17am
Quick question here Bruce. Did you obtain permission from the BATF to produce said belt and did you pay the $250 tax stamp on every explosive device used to make said belt? Also, you act of wearing said belt on the private property of an individual who deems it a danger to have said belt. Therefore you are infringing upon his right to his inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness. The true question you should be asking is "does it infringe upon my rights to have someone tell me I can't wear my suicide bomber belt in public?" Private property changes the rules around a bit. Public property is where most of the infringement cases dwell. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: ThatGuitarGuy
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 12:36am
I'm pretty sure, I'll let the lawyer on the forums confirm or deny it though, that a cop CAN search and seize off a person or property anything illegal or any evidence, without a warrant, provided the officer has probable cause to believe that said evidence could be disposed of by the time a proper warrant could be obtained. Therefore, a cop with probable cause COULD stop a drug dealer, and if he found drugs on him, take him into custody, regardless of whether or not the officer had a warrant. I'm sure there's some fine print in the law that I am not completely aware of, but that's why we'll let the forum lawyer go into greater detail. That's what we keep him around for, right? ------------- Skillet: I've never been terribly fond of the look of a vagina |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 8:37am
Really? Because I think you just said something about regulating the ownership of firearms for innocent people: Oh cry. Sorry that you people NEED your guns so much that making it difficult to get them is too much regulation.
You've shown your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to purchasing firearms Jmac. For instance, question 12e states: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, Marijuana, any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance" Question 12f states: "Have you ever been adjucated mentally defective (which includes having been adjucated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Question 12h states: "Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or intimate partner, or a child of such partner?" Question 12i states: "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? All of these are covered in the NCIS instant background check. That should answer your mental health, drug use, and other questions. Answering any of these questions falsely is a felony offense. So I was wrong? I didn't feel like reading some long drawn out lawyer speak. I was quite certain none of those needed to be answered, and noone said oherwise. Also, do any of those actually disqualify you? [/QUOTE] ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 8:49am
If you had read the plain language NCIS form link I sent you, you'd know that YES all of them disqualify you from purchasing a firearm under federal law. As for this wonderful quote:
Wonderful defense when you get caught being wrong about something you said yourself. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 8:53am
It's not a defense. I believe I admitted I was wrong. Oh wait, I did admit I was wrong. Doesn't mean I can't tell you to cry because I wish it was more difficult to get guns. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: adrenalinejunky
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 9:05am
no- i think you had it the first time, we have a right to keep and bear arms. i mean honestly, what would life be if we DIDNT have arms. i am slightly curious why they left out legs, those can be pretty usefull too.... what about amputees though? is that infringing on thier rights? should doctors that remove severly damaged limbs be prosecuted? :) |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 08 November 2008 at 9:37am
Oh, youre' not one? That explains why you have been consistently wrong in this thread. GG guys, GG. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |