Does ANYONE Agree With This Gun Nut's Plan For Gun Control?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

100 posts / 0 new

Here's what one far right Gun Nut wants for "gun control" in the US. I originally asked how many on the right agreed. But since they clearly lack the courage to say one of their own is a wacko... I'll throw the question out to everyone.

This is from a post here a few years back... (BTW... the 800k people the background check system blocked from buying a gun because of unpaid parking tickets was proved to be absolute bullsh*t.)

So for the plan you want me to right the bill. Ok here it is. Maximum freedom, convicted felons can not own weapons. Gun sales are allowed at happen at any time any where the seller and buyer deem necessary. Convicted felons in possession of fire arms will bf prosicuted. No back ground checks will be performed ever unless a crime has been committed. Fire arm sales, ammunition sales are permissible through the mail. The weapon will be delivered to the buyers house. Like I have said a big part of those 800,000 sales were people with unpaid parking tickets oncd paid are able to purchase weapons again. Extended to all gun sales how are you going to know if I sell a gun to a friend? Who would be prosecuted if I gave a fire arm to my brother who gave it to a friend who sold it to some one else who lost it dur to theft and than was used in a crime?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

I can only assume that since there have been no responses after 3 days that my right wing friends here feel trapped. They realize such views as expressed above can only favored by the most extreme and socially irresponsible gun nuts. But to admit it sullies and discredits their cause. So if they respond now it will be to distract from that fact, and some other reason will be concocted.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

1) you have any friends here?

2) could be no one gives a shit about your post

3) maybe they are not going to try to figure out what that necro post hackneyed quote is trying to say. I'm sure not going to try to decipher it-

4) go feed the chemtrail troll- its your best work.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:3) maybe they are not going to try to figure out what that necro post hackneyed quote is trying to say. I'm sure not going to try to decipher it-

You're right. While I can't make it appear sensible or sane, I should at least translate this illiterate poster's rant into English.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote stwo:3) maybe they are not going to try to figure out what that necro post hackneyed quote is trying to say. I'm sure not going to try to decipher it-

You're right. While I can't make it appear sensible or sane, I should at least translate this illiterate poster's rant into English.

OK, here goes... not that I expect you to respond. Your obvious motive was to evade responding to the views of this irresponsible Gun Nut... and make it seem as if I was the issue.

Quote translated from an illiterate and irresponsible Gun Nut:You want me to write a bill for gun control? Ok here it is. It's for maximum freedom. Gun sales are permitted anytime, anywhere, a seller and a buyer agree. Convicted felons in possession of firearms will be prosecuted. There will be NO background checks ever unless a crime has been committed. Firearm and ammunition sales are permissible through the mail. Firearms and ammo will be delivered to the buyer's house. As for those 800,000 firearm sales blocked because of background checks, the majority were people with unpaid parking tickets, which, once paid were able to purchase weapons again. No original owner of a gun will be prosecuted if they sell or give a gun to a friend or relative who gave it to a friend who sold it to someone else who lost it to theft and than was used in a crime.

So Stwo, I await your further evasions just like all the other right wingers refuse to comment on Mavibobo's irresponsible if not dangerous extremist views.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote ulTRAX:
Quote stwo:3) maybe they are not going to try to figure out what that necro post hackneyed quote is trying to say. I'm sure not going to try to decipher it-

You're right. While I can't make it appear sensible or sane, I should at least translate this illiterate poster's rant into English.

OK, here goes... not that I expect you to respond. Your obvious motive was to evade responding to the views of this irresponsible Gun Nut... and make it seem as if I was the issue.

Quote translated from an illiterate and irresponsible Gun Nut:You want me to write a bill for gun control? Ok here it is. It's for maximum freedom. Gun sales are permitted anytime, anywhere, a seller and a buyer agree. Convicted felons in possession of firearms will be prosecuted. There will be NO background checks ever unless a crime has been committed. Firearm and ammunition sales are permissible through the mail. Firearms and ammo will be delivered to the buyer's house. As for those 800,000 firearm sales blocked because of background checks, the majority were people with unpaid parking tickets, which, once paid were able to purchase weapons again. No original owner of a gun will be prosecuted if they sell or give a gun to a friend or relative who gave it to a friend who sold it to someone else who lost it to theft and than was used in a crime.

So Stwo, I await your further evasions just like all the other right wingers refuse to comment on Mavibobo's irresponsible if not dangerous extremist views.

I know you hate freedom but here is yet another explanation of my point of view.

Back ground checks where put in place so fat lazy law enforcement officer could be fatter and lazier.

Back ground checks are a fairly new item when it comes to law enforcement. Before background checks people where still able to buy weapons and refuse to sell to felons. It just took a bit more police work to keep bad people from obtaining wespons.

Felons have and always will find a way to purchase a fire arm.

If a felon has a weapon you prosecute the offender, if some one buys a weapon and then gives it to a felon knowing they are a felon they both get prosecuted.

Weapons and ammo will be allowed to be purchased online and sent to your home just like they did in the 60's

Fire arms safety will be taught in schools again as well as shooting competition's will be part of the class schedule

More to follow

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm

Outlawing or banning anything doesn't stop the people who want it. Just look at drugs and booze and hookers. Suppose the US outlawed the sale and manufacture of all guns this Friday. By Saturday morning, there would be an unstoppable black market for them, probably using the existing drug routes already established.

The only difference is, once you use a drug, it's gone forever. Guns can be used over and over again.

It's a fun thing to talk about - a world without guns. Or, rather, a world without crazy people with guns. But that's all it is, and all it will ever be: something to talk about as a "what if".

What if we could ensure only sane people had guns?

What if we could somehow confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns already out there?

The Left's anti-gun rhetoric on serves to motivate the Right to vote against them. It's the Left's equivalent of the Right's stance on illegal immigration. You can't un-open that can of worms either, but it's good to give it lip service from time to time.

ChicagoMatt
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2014 11:29 am
Quote ChicagoMatt:The Left's anti-gun rhetoric on serves to motivate the Right to vote against them. It's the Left's equivalent of the Right's stance on illegal immigration. You can't un-open that can of worms either, but it's good to give it lip service from time to time.

What anti-gun rhetoric? I've owned a firearm for 35 years. I certainly don't want gun prohibition. I believe any law that exceeds legitimate intent is an abuse of power. Where I differ from the Gun Nut who wrote that "gun policy" is he's clearly a socially and emotionally immature brat who just wants what he wants. He reminds me of myself... when I was 14.

What I want are common sense laws. First to tighten up the loopholes in the current background check system... such as closing the private sale loophole. I'd like to make mental health professionals into mandated reporters if someone under their care is threatening murder..I'd like to see people trained. And I'd like to see a tax on guns and ammo... not to go into the general fund, but to cover the social costs of the problems guns cause. (I'd like to see the same with tobacco products, pot, alcohol etc and let the market put pressure on users) Insurance is another possibility. We have a system to insure drivers, to make cars safer. If someone is injured their medical bills paid and they have the right to sue. Why should this not exist for guns? Thom's made the point that the Newtown families not only had their children killed, but then had no legal recourse. Let the insurance companies also put pressure on gun owners to clean up their act. Maybe gun owning parents would be more careful if they have wacko kid.

I think it's the extreme rhetoric from Gun Nut groups and extremists who bastardize the Second Amendment and who write such irresponsible nonsense as I quoted in the original post who are the real dangerous people. Pigeon hole me anyway you want. You'll probably be wrong. I may be on the left... way further left than most here. But I'm also a gun owner, and an illegal immigration and fiscal responsibility hard liner.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Reply to #7

You obviously aren't paying attention, or maybe you're watching too much Fox. There's no one on the left that I know of who wants to outlaw all guns.

Many of us do however want to outlaw mass murder firearms. Leaving only practical use firearms, such as low ammo capacity hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Much like what has been done in Australia............. High capacity, quick load, semi-auto firearms serve no practical purpose in the civilian world.

Many on the left also want a stringent gun licensing and registration process enacted, similar to what is done with automobiles.

I've yet to hear a logical argument from those who oppose such regulations.

organican's picture
organican
Joined:
Nov. 30, 2012 3:24 am
Quote organican:

Reply to #7

You obviously aren't paying attention, or maybe you're watching too much Fox. There's no one on the left that I know of who wants to outlaw all guns.

Many of us do however want to outlaw mass murder firearms. Leaving only practical use firearms, such as low ammo capacity hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Much like what has been done in Australia............. High capacity, quick load, semi-auto firearms serve no practical purpose in the civilian world.

Many on the left also want a stringent gun licensing and registration process enacted, similar to what is done with automobiles.

I've yet to hear a logical argument from those who oppose such regulations.

"There's no one on the left that I know of who wants to outlaw all guns."

You obviously are not paying attention. Ever heard of RASA? Repeal or Amend the Second Amenment? For what purpose other than the ending the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"Many of us do however want to outlaw mass murder firearms."

You are going to have an impossible task of defining what that means.

"Many on the left also want a stringent gun licensing and registration process enacted..."

The government cannot prosecute a person who is unable to legally own a firearm, for failing to register said firearm. So, why registration? What will that accomplish? Australia...registration leads to confiscation.

"Many on the left also want a stringent gun licensing and registration process enacted, similar to what is done with automobiles."

What other Constitutional Amendments are you willing to put such a burden on? What you are saying is a clear infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.

Most everyone who knows anything, are aware of the anti-gunners main objective. It is to eventually outlaw the private ownership of firearms. The anti-gun crowd is just too cowardly to admit it.

Kilosqrd's picture
Kilosqrd
Joined:
Sep. 5, 2014 2:22 am

HAHAHA No, that wasn't my motive- my motive should be obvious. I don't care about all that gun control political theater.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kilosqrd:
Quote organican:

You obviously aren't paying attention, or maybe you're watching too much Fox. There's no one on the left that I know of who wants to outlaw all guns.

Many of us do however want to outlaw mass murder firearms. Leaving only practical

You obviously are not paying attention. Ever heard of RASA? Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment? For what purpose other than the ending the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Of course there's going to be some that want to outlaw guns. There are extremists on every side of every issue. I'm sure someone wants to outlaw sidewalks, private homes, autos, religion, atheism, and hamburgers.

As for the Second... perhaps NO other amendment could be more clear. After all how many places in the Constitution contain an explanation? And yet it's really the Gun Nuts who are the organized extremists here. They are the ones determined to rewrite the Constitution to negate the first half of the Second. Then there are social conservative extremists like Scalia who want to negate the Ninth fearing it will be the protector of rights they don't want the People to have. It was easy for him to bastardize the Second to negate the militia clause and invent an individual right there than to flesh out the Ninth. But that leaves us with the absurd idea that the Framers/First Congress believed a right to own a gun was more important, deserving enumeration, where rights like falling in love, or not...having a family, or not, etc etc got NO protection.

And here's the rub. The construction of the Constitution NEVER was meant to be the source of natural rights of freemen. What the Bill of Rights mostly did was create NEW rights as a limit on NEW government powers. The Constitution gave no direct power to the federal government over individual gun ownership. Do you believe the People or the States would have permitted it? But it did give Congress power over arming the militia.

Madison explained the categories of his draft Bill of Rights amendments this way

In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

Militias do not exist in nature. The Second simply CREATES a positive right... a way to limit the new powers given the federal government over the militia. It was designed to prevent Congress from neglecting or disarming state militias which were necessary for a state's internal security. In reality when Congress created the new militia system it MANDATED gun ownership for militia members. A right is a choice to own a gun or not. There was no choice. The Second protects the rights of states to have a functional militia made up of the able bodied freemen (the People).

Either way, this is straying from examining the views of the forum's most extreme and irresponsible nut. So I take it you have no opinion on the actual topic of this thread?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stwo:

HAHAHA No, that wasn't my motive- my motive should be obvious. I don't care about all that gun control political theater.

OK... you came here only to harass this thread and make personal comments.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:OK... you came here only to harass this thread and make personal comments.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Militias do not exist in nature. The Second simply CREATES a positive right... a way to limit the new powers given the federal government over the militia. It was designed to prevent Congress from neglecting or disarming state militias which were necessary for a state's internal security. In reality when Congress created the new militia system it MANDATED gun ownership for militia members. A right is a choice to own a gun or not. There was no choice. The Second protects the rights of states to have a functional militia made up of the able bodied freemen (the People).

Either way, this is straying from examining the views of the forum's most extreme and irresponsible nut. So I take it you have no opinion on the actual topic of this thread?

What a load of bs. You are in way over your head ultrax. Read the Constitution. The first three words. We The People. Who is that?

Read the 1st Amendment. "...the right of the people to assemble peaceably... " who are "the people" mentioned in the 1st Amendment? Read the 4th Amendment. The right of "the people" to be secure....

And it is your arguement that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", means that the framers were talking about a different group of people? The militia perhaps? Well the 2nd Amendment says the right of "the people". It does not say "...the right of "the militia" to keep and bear arms..." And I'm sure you know that the definition of the militia is an armed citizenry.

I counted 4 times you used the phrase "the people" in your response. Who are the people you are talking about? Sorry ultrax, your points carry no weight.

" It was designed to prevent Congress from neglecting or disarming state militias"

Say what? Are you serious? Read the 2nd Amendment. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State....The word State is capitalized. It means the Nation-State, not the individual states. I was taught that in grade school.

From your own link: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. James Madison"s words, right?

Says NOTHING about individual states.

Kilosqrd's picture
Kilosqrd
Joined:
Sep. 5, 2014 2:22 am
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote stwo:

HAHAHA No, that wasn't my motive- my motive should be obvious. I don't care about all that gun control political theater.

OK... you came here only to harass this thread and make personal comments.

I think his motive to to make me look bad as he tries to discredit me and my maximum freedom point of view.

He believes like Dianne Fienstien that if the people are unarmed crime will stop. That if we can just get the right law in place the criminals will suddenly stop committing crime and put their weapons down. This is according to Mrs Fienstien human nature to put down their weapon and turn themselves in if they know no one else is armed.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote Kilosqrd:

What a load of bs. You are in way over your head ultrax. Read the Constitution. The first three words. We The People. Who is that?

ROTF... the "People" is a curious term. It sounds all inclusive, but at the time it seems to describe only the freemen who made up the political body. For example, the term is only used one other time in the original Constitution...

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

If the People meant everyone... this would have allowed women to vote. So were free women the political body or the People? I'll admit, it gets confusing. The People seems to be a term of art in early Republican theory.

And are you suggesting slaves were to get the "blessings of liberty"... or had a right to own firearms?

Quote Kilosqrd:Read the 1st Amendment. "...the right of the people to assemble peaceably... " who are "the people" mentioned in the 1st Amendment? Read the 4th Amendment. The right of "the people" to be secure....

See above

Quote Kilosqrd:And it is your argument that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", means that the framers were talking about a different group of people? The militia perhaps? Well the 2nd Amendment says the right of "the people". It does not say "...the right of "the militia" to keep and bear arms..." And I'm sure you know that the definition of the militia is an armed citizenry.
But MILITIAS DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE. In this context they are completely the creations of the states and the federal government. From Art 1, sec 8 Congress has the power to tax and spend...

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

You're clearly the one over your head. The natural rights of free persons were already protected by how the Constitution was constructed... including any right to own a firearm. If there were any limitations it was between them and their state. And some states DID restrict the gun ownership even to Black freemen. THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T TOUCH THAT RELATIONSHIP. NO RIGHTS WERE CEDED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS AREA... except indirectly.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA... not drunken Bozos out in the hills of Montana. When Congress finally creates the new militia system in the Militia Acts of 1792 IT'S RESTRICTED TO ONLY ABLE BODIED WHITE MEN.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

As I said... The People... men in the militia, were MANDATED to own their own firearm.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges...

That's hardly a "right" in any normal use of the term. The "right to keep and bear" is completely IN THE MILITIA CONTEXT. Which is not to say the federal government cared about other uses. It just WAS NOT anything it was given power over. Only Gun Nuts are so arrogant as to negate the militia clause. But then Gun Nuts tend to be intelectually dishonest brats who just want what they want. When they're really obnoxious they often want to see themselves as the choosen ones... the protectors of the Republic.

Quote Kilosqrd:

" It was designed to prevent Congress from neglecting or disarming state militias"

Say what? Are you serious? Read the 2nd Amendment. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State....The word State is capitalized. It means the Nation-State, not the individual states. I was taught that in grade school.

Sorry Einstein... if you bothered to read Madison's draft of what became the second it originally said FREE COUNTRY. It was changed to FREE STATE... not states. Here's Madison's draft from http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Hope your teacher was fired for incompetence. Look at the damage s/he did to your education after all these years.. that's assuming, of course, that you're still not in grade school.

Either way... THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC. If you want to discuss the Second... start you own thread or resurrect one of the endless number of old ones.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:He believes like Dianne Fienstien that if the people are unarmed crime will stop. That if we can just get the right law in place the criminals will suddenly stop committing crime and put their weapons down.
Really? Prove you're not again pulling lies out of your butt. SHOW ME WHERE I EVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE.

However YOU have repeatedly claimed that we need no other laws, such as background checks... since it's already against the law to sell a gun to a felon, or for a felon to own one.

Yup, you're for gun sale laws without enforcement because. Why? We should be able to trust that sellers and felons will be aware of the law and abide by it. Or since they can never be trusted no law will ever accomplish anything?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote stwo:

HAHAHA No, that wasn't my motive- my motive should be obvious. I don't care about all that gun control political theater.

OK... you came here only to harass this thread and make personal comments.

I think his motive to to make me look bad as he tries to discredit me and my maximum freedom point of view. He believes like Dianne Fienstien that if the people are unarmed crime will stop. That if we can just get the right law in place the criminals will suddenly stop committing crime and put their weapons down. This is according to Mrs Fienstien human nature to put down their weapon and turn themselves in if they know no one else is armed.
is that /sarc? If not, you got me all wrong Mavibobo. I don't bother arguing second amendment because it ain't going anywhere and the libs get shut down every time they try to infringe.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:He believes like Dianne Fienstien that if the people are unarmed crime will stop. That if we can just get the right law in place the criminals will suddenly stop committing crime and put their weapons down.
Really? Prove you're not again pulling lies out of your butt. SHOW ME WHERE I EVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE.

However YOU have repeatedly claimed that we need no other laws, such as background checks... since it's already against the law to sell a gun to a felon, or for a felon to own one.

Yup, you're for gun sale laws without enforcement because. Why? We should be able to trust that sellers and felons will be aware of the law and abide by it. Or since they can never be trusted no law will ever accomplish anything?

Do you have to prove you are a citizen to vote? or you are not a drunk to buy a car? How about a wacko to buy a knife? Do you have to prove you are not a drug addict to buy drugs oh wait those are illegal already but some how lots of left wing libs seem to die from overdoses. So why do I have to do the police departments job for them and prI've I am innocent to buy a fire arm? Is it innocent until proven guilty or does that only apply to things you do like.

I never said we should not have enforcement, I have said it is not my responsibility to do the enforcement that is why we pay police, let them do their job of enforcement and I will do my part by following the rules.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:I think his motive to to make me look bad as he tries to discredit me and my maximum freedom point of view.
No one has to try and make you look bad BooBoo. That is the only thing you excel at completely on your own.

BTW, I'm also for maximum freedom but unlike you I no longer think like a 14 year old rebelling against authority. I balance individual rights with social responsibility. My view is more along the lines of the Rights Of Man

4: Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

The gun control measures I mentioned above somewhere are a balance. You, on the other hand, are completely self-centered and we see this in your irresponsible views on guns and your hate filled views towards the working poor... who you want to crush and drive into desperation just so you can finally feel superior to someone. In the end your irrational, emotionally immature self always wins.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:I think his motive to to make me look bad as he tries to discredit me and my maximum freedom point of view.
No one has to try and make you look bad BooBoo. That is the only thing you excel at completely on your own.

BTW, I'm also for maximum freedom but unlike you I no longer think like a 14 year old rebelling against authority. I balance individual rights with social responsibility. My view is more along the lines of the Rights Of Man

4: Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

The gun control measures I mentioned above somewhere are a balance. You, on the other hand, are completely self-centered and we see this in your irresponsible views on guns and your hate filled views towards the working poor... who you want to crush and drive into desperation just so you can finally feel superior to someone. In the end your irrational, emotionally immature self always wins.

Maximum freedom is that why you want to tax the rich wealth at 90 percent? Is that why you want gun owners to take a psychological test before they can buy a gun, but do not mention automobiles or knives. Is that why you want to disarm the public but do not mind the authorities having all the weapons.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote mavibobo's back to whining: Is it innocent until proven guilty or does that only apply to things you do like.
Get a grip you infantile whiner. You had to PROVE you were you just to post here. You have to PROVE you own a bank account before you can withdraw money from it. You have to PROVE you are competent to drive a car before getting a license.

A presumption of innocence is a legal standard for COURTS... not life.

This forum, your bank, or a state issuing a drivers license can place common sense barriers before they let you do something. I don't see you ever whining about them. But MAN, when it comes to felons and background checks... for THAT cause you'll gladly come here and repeatedly make an arse of yourself with 500 posts over 3 years.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:Maximum freedom is that why you want to tax the rich wealth at 90 percent?
SHOW ME WHERE I EVER WROTE THAT. Put up or shut up and retract.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:Is that why you want to disarm the public but do not mind the authorities having all the weapons.
SHOW ME WHERE I EVER SAID THAT. Put up or shut up and retract.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:Yup, you're for gun sale laws without enforcement because. Why? We should be able to trust that sellers and felons will be aware of the law and abide by it. Or since they can never be trusted no law will ever accomplish anything?

I never said we should not have enforcement, I have said it is not my responsibility to do the enforcement that is why we pay police, let them do their job of enforcement and I will do my part by following the rules.
Who said YOU were going to enforce laws... even if you have childish visions of being the Lone Ranger with your concealed weapon.

And are you rewriting history AGAIN? We've been over this 20 times and as I've observed... you are intellectually incapable of comprehending or considering ANYTHING someone you disagrees with says. In your mind YOUR views are the only ones that matter. In part because you're insecure... which is why your cower behind your guns in your secret bunker and you also need to believe you're some sort of Mensa Mega Mind.

You've CONSISTENTLY claimed expanded background checks will do nothing since criminals will break laws that ban them from owning a gun. But the law also says guns can't be SOLD to a criminal. That law can only be enforced with tighter background checks AND ATF stings.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:

[quote=mavibobo]He believes like Dianne Fienstien that if the people are unarmed crime will stop. That if we can just get the right law in place the criminals will suddenly stop committing crime and put their weapons down.

Really? Prove you're not again pulling lies out of your butt. SHOW ME WHERE I EVER SAID ANYTHING CLOSE.

Still waiting for the proof.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:Yup, you're for gun sale laws without enforcement because. Why? We should be able to trust that sellers and felons will be aware of the law and abide by it. Or since they can never be trusted no law will ever accomplish anything?

I never said we should not have enforcement, I have said it is not my responsibility to do the enforcement that is why we pay police, let them do their job of enforcement and I will do my part by following the rules.
Who said YOU were going to enforce laws... even if you have childish visions of being the Lone Ranger with your concealed weapon.

And are you rewriting history AGAIN? We've been over this 20 times and as I've observed... you are intellectually incapable of comprehending or considering ANYTHING someone you disagrees with says. In your mind YOUR views are the only ones that matter. In part because you're insecure... which is why your cower behind your guns in your secret bunker and you also need to believe you're some sort of Mensa Mega Mind.

You've CONSISTENTLY claimed expanded background checks will do nothing since criminals will break laws that ban them from owning a gun. But the law also says guns can't be SOLD to a criminal. That law can only be enforced with tighter background checks AND ATF stings.

Please explain how expired background checks would have stopped the sandy hook shooting?

I carry a concealed weapon because I am to young to die and to old to take an asset kicking.

But yes I have gone to enforce a law when local law enforcement told me they would not come out to help because it might be dangerous.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote mavibobo: Please explain how expired background checks would have stopped the sandy hook shooting?
Is that pathetic question the product of your Mensa Mega Mind?

Sorry Einstein... you DO realize there are more gun crimes than Newtown, right? And who ever said ALL mass shootings can ever be prevented. Because you're an irrational gun nut extremist you actually believe cheery-picking ONE particular shooting proves something.

There needs to be action on several fronts. Expanding background checks will limit legal guns flowing into the illegal market. Same with going after straw purchasers. Mental health workers need to be mandated reporters and police have to investigate. This may have stopped Aurora. Same with Virginia Tech. There also needs to be a mass education program for gun owners to be on the alert for disturbed family members who have access to those guns. After all the MOTHER was in the best position to keep the guns out of her psychotic son's hands.

Which reminds me... reading more on Lanza... he sounds a lot like you

Adam Lanza was diagnosed in 2006 with... rigidity, isolation, a lack of comprehension of ordinary social interaction and communications, and obsessive-compulsive disorder

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX to BooBoo:No back ground checks will be performed ever unless a crime has been committed.
I know that you want to divert attention from what I quoted in original proposal to some side issues. But WTF do you even mean that background checks will NEVER be permitted until AFTER a gun crime has been committed? The intent of background checks is to PREVENT gun crimes by screening out people who are at higher risk of committing them.

Waiting until AFTER a gun crime has been committed makes no sense since by then any hope of prevention is gone.

I'm sure your Mensa Mega Mind has thought through what we pathetic mortals can not.

So please explain your brilliant intent behind what seems an irresponsible if not psychotic idea.

Thanks!!!

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX quoting BooBoo:

Like I have said a big part of those 800,000 sales were people with unpaid parking tickets oncd paid are able to purchase weapons again.

Have you YET retracted your false claim? If not... we've been waiting now for almost 3 years for your proof NICS has been lying in its statistics.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX quoting BooBoo:Fire arm sales, ammunition sales are permissible through the mail. The weapon will be delivered to the buyers house.
Why are you so intent to go back to the Lee Harvey Oswald days of no background checks and delivering guns/ammo to a person's home?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX quoting BooBoo:Gun sales are allowed at happen at any time any where the seller and buyer deem necessary.
Why? What's the emergency? What other items should be sold this way? Bomb making materials? Anthrax? Smallpox virus? Radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs?

After all, your mantra is MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!!... (social responsibility be damned.)

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

It is something about this country where some people are obsessed with guns. They want bigger clips, they want higher powered ammo, They want open carry, they want concealed carry, they want everyone to have a semi auto gun, they are against registration, background checks, mental checks and laws. You go to South Korea where every male has to serve 2 years in the military and use weapons of war. They are not obsessed with guns. Infact they make jokes about Americans obsession with guns. They read about our crime rates and laugh at us. South Korea is just one example of the majority of the world. What causes this obsession? Video games? They have them in South Korea, they are big on gameing centers. Gunsmoke and Bonanza? Our obsession with guns on TV is probably greater than any other country so (excuse the pun) maybe this is the smoking gun.Maybe it is that this country is almost always at war. Like I said every South Korean male serves in the military. What I am saying is that there is no other country that has so many people that are obsessed with guns. Now some clown is going to respond that they do not have as much freedom. That is not it. They are not obsessed. They cannot imagine being fearful to walk outside without a gun. They are civilized. Throw in Europe, Asia etc. Sure you have Mexico and Central America with some gun problems. A lot of it comes from us. I have been to Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica and do not remember seeing a gun on a civilian or a gun shop. I have worked with people that spend their life savings on arsenals, for what? We have a survivalist in our neighborhood that has an electric generator that operates on natural gas or propane (500 gallon tank) if the natural gas is cut off. He has an arsenal. He is President of the local "Christian Gun Club". He has a year supply of food and is prepared for what? In eleven years that I have lived here we have never had a power failure. He is around 75 so what is he gaining? I sat next to him at a HOA meeting and made the mistake of asking why he had the huge propane tank. He is totally obsessed with surviving something that is going to happen.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Obsessions seem odd to many. I have heard some leftie hate radio talking heads actually lug Geiger counters around with them. Some people are obsessed with pot legalization. Some see global warming as an issue. Others still live in their parents basement or post all their negatives from 6000 miles away. Some posters actually admit forums make them "high" and it is destroying their lives. Contrails? Ronald Reagan? Koch, pigeons, the list goes on.

It takes a village.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am
Quote Dexterous: blah blah blah

Gee Dexie... thanks for proving my point I made earlier when Stwo evaded the actual topic of this thread... which wasn't guns per se, but BooBoo's views on guns.

So Stwo, I await your further evasions just like all the other right wingers refuse to comment on Mavibobo's irresponsible if not dangerous extremist views.

So between Stwo, Kilo, and you I'm batting 1000... and you right wingers are coming off as moral cowards.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I was just trolling. You can await all you want.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote ulTRAX quoting BooBoo:Gun sales are allowed at happen at any time any where the seller and buyer deem necessary.
Why? What's the emergency? What other items should be sold this way? Bomb making materials? Anthrax? Smallpox virus? Radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs?

After all, your mantra is MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!!... (social responsibility be damned.)

Who am I supposed to be for permission? Why do I have to beg or even ask anyone for permission?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote ulTRAX quoting BooBoo:Fire arm sales, ammunition sales are permissible through the mail. The weapon will be delivered to the buyers house.
Why are you so intent to go back to the Lee Harvey Oswald days of no background checks and delivering guns/ammo to a person's home?

Crime rates and gun deaths where lower? More people where taught that guns are not the problem. Kids settled things with fists not guns but some of that is a parenting problem....

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote ulTRAX to BooBoo:No back ground checks will be performed ever unless a crime has been committed.
I know that you want to divert attention from what I quoted in original proposal to some side issues. But WTF do you even mean that background checks will NEVER be permitted until AFTER a gun crime has been committed? The intent of background checks is to PREVENT gun crimes by screening out people who are at higher risk of committing them.

Waiting until AFTER a gun crime has been committed makes no sense since by then any hope of prevention is gone.

I'm sure your Mensa Mega Mind has thought through what we pathetic mortals can not.

So please explain your brilliant intent behind what seems an irresponsible if not psychotic idea.

Thanks!!!

When do the police investigate a crime, is it before or after a crime has been committed.

Let's look at this another way.

UlTRAX wants to buy a new copy of the communist manifesto. So he goes to a book store. At the book store he is required to fill out a form and show two forms of id. The book store clerk then calls the local police and says. Yes I have a suspect here trying to buy a book. Yes the suspect wants to buy a copy of the communist manifiesto. OK I will hold. 10 minutes goes by. Yes the suspect is still here. OK thank you.

The clerk then says I am sorry ulTRAX but the police said your mental health care doctor put a hold on you...

UlTRAX explains he does not have a mental health doctor but their is nothing the book store clerk can do but deny his request.

That is how it goes for gun purchases, why not book you don't agree with?

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX: Why are you so intent to go back to the Lee Harvey Oswald days of no background checks and delivering guns/ammo to a person's home?

Crime rates and gun deaths where lower? More people where taught that guns are not the problem. Kids settled things with fists not guns but some of that is a parenting problem....
Gee... one might think that someone who claims to be a Mensa Mega Mind would NEVER assume a single variable in a complex society could EVER explain everything... especially without a credible causal explanation. But then the only person who considers himself a Mensa Mega Mind is you. I could play that game too and point to the dramatic drop in crime AFTER the background check system started. But I never have. I think there are numerous reasons the crime rate is down including three strike laws.

So because YOU, as an irresponsible Gun Nut in the truest, most pathological meaning of the term want to claim easy access to guns CUT the crime rate... we're to genuflect at the alter of your Mensa Mega Mind and just abolish the background check system which has stopped a million sales to criminals etc?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote ulTRAX to BooBoo:No back ground checks will be performed ever unless a crime has been committed.
I know that you want to divert attention from what I quoted in original proposal to some side issues. But WTF do you even mean that background checks will NEVER be permitted until AFTER a gun crime has been committed? The intent of background checks is to PREVENT gun crimes by screening out people who are at higher risk of committing them.

Waiting until AFTER a gun crime has been committed makes no sense since by then any hope of prevention is gone.

I'm sure your Mensa Mega Mind has thought through what we pathetic mortals can not.

So please explain your brilliant intent behind what seems an irresponsible if not psychotic idea.

Thanks!!!

When do the police investigate a crime, is it before or after a crime has been committed.
Back to more of your psychotic Gun Nut psycho logic. You said background checks would not be done UNLESS a crime is committed. WTF is the point? To arrest an felon for having a gun AND committing a gun crime?

What your pea brain STILL refuses to comprehend is BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

Shall I repeat that?

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote ulTRAX quoting BooBoo:Gun sales are allowed at happen at any time any where the seller and buyer deem necessary.
Why? What's the emergency? What other items should be sold this way? Bomb making materials? Anthrax? Smallpox virus? Radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs?

After all, your mantra is MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!!... (social responsibility be damned.)

Who am I supposed to be for permission? Why do I have to beg or even ask anyone for permission?
Ya, the NERVE of a government charged with preserving domestic tranquility and the general welfare insist ANYONE prove they are psychological stable and have the technical skills to handle deadly weapons (and you're in favor of the People having ANY weapon the military has), bomb making materials, anthrax, the smallpox virus, and radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs? Social responsibility be damned. The world must revolve around the impulses of mentally unstable Gun Nuts and terrorists.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote ulTRAX to BooBoo:No back ground checks will be performed ever unless a crime has been committed.
I know that you want to divert attention from what I quoted in original proposal to some side issues. But WTF do you even mean that background checks will NEVER be permitted until AFTER a gun crime has been committed? The intent of background checks is to PREVENT gun crimes by screening out people who are at higher risk of committing them.

Waiting until AFTER a gun crime has been committed makes no sense since by then any hope of prevention is gone.

I'm sure your Mensa Mega Mind has thought through what we pathetic mortals can not.

So please explain your brilliant intent behind what seems an irresponsible if not psychotic idea.

Thanks!!!

When do the police investigate a crime, is it before or after a crime has been committed.
Back to more of your psychotic Gun Nut psycho logic. You said background checks would not be done UNLESS a crime is committed. WTF is the point? To arrest an felon for having a gun AND committing a gun crime?

What your pea brain STILL refuses to comprehend is BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

Shall I repeat that?

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT GUN CRIMES.

By treating all gun buyers as suspect red criminals so much for innocent until proven guilty.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote ulTRAX quoting BooBoo:Gun sales are allowed at happen at any time any where the seller and buyer deem necessary.
Why? What's the emergency? What other items should be sold this way? Bomb making materials? Anthrax? Smallpox virus? Radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs?

After all, your mantra is MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!!... (social responsibility be damned.)

Who am I supposed to be for permission? Why do I have to beg or even ask anyone for permission?
Ya, the NERVE of a government charged with preserving domestic tranquility and the general welfare insist ANYONE prove they are psychological stable and have the technical skills to handle deadly weapons (and you're in favor of the People having ANY weapon the military has), bomb making materials, anthrax, the smallpox virus, and radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs? Social responsibility be damned. The world must revolve around the impulses of mentally unstable Gun Nuts and terrorists.

What is to stop them from treating you like this to buy a book they do not agree with?

So you believe that freedom only applies to things you agree with.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote mavibobo:What is to stop them from treating you like this to buy a book they do not agree with? So you believe that freedom only applies to things you agree with.

Hey Mensa Moron.. I OWN A FIREARM. So please quit the lame accusations.

I addressed a question to YOU, about YOUR moronic gun plan... and you EVADED IT with your moronic book diversion. And you evaded the question the second time.

Sorry BooBoo... this is like all discussions with you. You're only interested in what you have to say and are incapable... even YEARS LATER... of comprehending what others are saying.

Here's the discussion again

BooBoo back in 2013: Gun sales are allowed at happen at any time any where the seller and buyer deem necessary.

ulTRAX: Why? What's the emergency? What other items should be sold this way? Bomb making materials? Anthrax? Smallpox virus? Radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Quote mavibobo:What is to stop them from treating you like this to buy a book they do not agree with? So you believe that freedom only applies to things you agree with.

Hey Mensa Moron.. I OWN A FIREARM. So please quit the lame accusations.

I addressed a question to YOU, about YOUR moronic gun plan... and you EVADED IT with your moronic book diversion. And you evaded the question the second time.

Sorry BooBoo... this is like all discussions with you. You're only interested in what you have to say and are incapable... even YEARS LATER... of comprehending what others are saying.

Here's the discussion again

BooBoo back in 2013: Gun sales are allowed at happen at any time any where the seller and buyer deem necessary.

ulTRAX: Why? What's the emergency? What other items should be sold this way? Bomb making materials? Anthrax? Smallpox virus? Radioactive isotopes for dirty bombs?

You keep saying you own a fire arm, but if I remember right you also said it was taken apart and stored away, not touching it for years.

Why? Because if I want to buy something anything at all I should not have to wait a month for a government agent to tell me I can purchase what u want to purchase.

What is the emergency? There is no emergency is there an emergency when you walk into a store pay for your product and walk out. Why should guns be held while some one you will never even speak to decides if you should have it or not?

Anthrax is a naturally occurring illness in cows and sheep. So unless you know how to weapons zero it, it is pretty useless.

Bomb making materials are for sale at your local grocery story.

Radioactive isotopes will hurt others even with proper hsndling.

Guns do not hurt anyone just by being there like radio active material.

mavibobo's picture
mavibobo
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2014 2:39 pm
Quote mavibobo: Because if I want to buy something anything at all I should not have to wait a month for a government agent to tell me I can purchase what u want to purchase. What is the emergency? There is no emergency is there an emergency when you walk into a store pay for your product and walk out. Why should guns be held while some one you will never even speak to decides if you should have it or not?
RED HERRING ALERT!! Or should your lie about a sale taking a month just be called what it is: a bold faced lie.

Let the record show that NONE of even the right wingers here.. some Gun Nuts in their own right, have come to your defense. NOT EVEN THE EXTREMIST NRA AGREES WITH YOU. After all, they were the ones who pushed for the "instant" background check system... something you CLAIM you can pass... yet are always whining, and in this case lying, as you did above.

Face it BooBoo... your views are SO extreme and SO irresponsible that only the most fanatical Gun Nuts... perhaps we should call them Gun Psychos, agree with you. Which is why I consider people such as yourself to have a psychiatric disorder

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/03/being-fanatical-gun-nut-psychi...

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

There is no evidence that waiting periods have any affect on gun violence whatsoever.

Carol Bowne of new jersey might have disagreed with that. She was killed last April by an ex boyfriend while she was waiting for New Jersey to determine if she should be allowed to own a firearm she was trying to buy to defend herself from him.

Background checks are an unecessary and ineffective infringment on an unalienable individual right. Add to that the record number of guns owned and steadily decreasing trend in gun violence and anyone can see the counter argument is based on emotion and ignorance.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

Let the record show that NONE of even the right wingers here.. some Gun Nuts in their own right, have come to your defense.

Ever consider the fact you get few responses from anyone except the two or three that just love to pull your chain. Most here just consider you an annoying little gnat.

Attempting to discuss firearms with an individual that is afraid of guns is a waste of bytes.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am

Here's what I think is reasonable in this day and age with the internet and everything.

1. The state legislatures need to decide which convictions will deprive someone of their rights to own a firearm. I don't think all felonies should preclude a person from owning a firearm, nor do I believe that some misdemeanors couldn't lead to a deprivation of such right. I think the criterion needs to be violent crime, not felony or misdemeanor. Any conviction which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the offender has a higher propensity to commit firearm violence would count. But we shouldn't just say such and such of a white collar crime is a felony and therfor he loses his right to own a firearm.

2. Once you decide which convictions deprive people of their right to own a firearm, the states should simply post a list of those people online.

3. Once that is done, make it a civil violation for a seller to sell a firearm to a person on that list. It's free for the seller to go on the internet and check him out if he wants. If he does not do his due dillegence, he does so at his own legal risk. No "background check" is required, per se.

4. And of course make is a serious crime for a person convicted of the appropriate crime to buy a firearm. But we don't punish the buyer and seller equally.

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 3:26 pm

America: Meet Your Overlord Rupert Murdoch...

Thom plus logo The main lesson that we've learned so far from the impeachment hearings is that if Richard Nixon had had a billionaire like Rupert Murdoch with a television network like Fox News behind him, he never would've resigned and America would have continued to be presided over by a criminal.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system