Record Gun Sales 15 Months Straight...

Glen Contrarian said:

Okay. I'll define what I support. Again.

- background checks required for ALL sales, including private sales.

- registration of all firearms. This has the dual effect of enabling background checks of private sales AND being able to track down and identify gun smugglers...like the ones who smuggle almost a quarter million firearms per year into Mexico. And no, Nazi Germany is NOT a good example of why full registration is a bad idea...because unlike Nazi Germany, we are not a tyranny. We are a first-world democracy...and ALL the other first-world democracies do have full registration, and not a single one of them have devolved into a tyranny as the NRA seems to believe is inevitable when full registration is implemented.

- required notification of the police whenever a firearm is lost or stolen.

- required firearm safety courses before first owning a firearm. None should be needed after the first course.

- personally, I'd prefer required insurance for firearm ownership...but I don't think that one is politically possible.

It boils down to this: make it easy for bad guys to get firearms, and more bad guys WILL get firearms. Make it harder for them to do so, and while many still will, many WON'T...and the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear firearms is still protected.

Click to expand...

Canada does not have full registration. They canceled their long gun registration as it was found to be worthless and the cost enormous. As far as any sort of registration, how do you satisfy our concerns that they will never be used for confiscation? What kind of safeguards can you offer? They have already been used for confiscation here in states that require it. In addition, they were the first step to almost total confiscation in those "first world" countries gun control advocates point to as example..

Why require insurance? What specifically is the purpose?.

Glen Contrarian said:

Really? REALLY? Do you never watch the local news?

Click to expand...

Yes I do, and the majority of shootings reported that I watch are people doing stupid things in stupid places. If your drug distributor shoots you because you gypped him you're not an innocent victim

If you have anything to do with drugs and are shot by someone else having anything to do with drugs you are probably not my definition of an innocent victim.

If your bad decisions are why you got shot, well it's hard to describe you as an innocent victim.victim of a crime yes, innocent? No.

The handful of times that truly innocent people are shot, like a school shooting or disgruntled ex employee are a small percentage of deaths, if you put those on a pie chat it wouldn't even be a tenth of it.

[

QUOTE=Glen Contrarian;1066165072]Yet again, all y'all can think of is "those damn liberals just want to ban all the guns!" The simple FACT that very, very few of us actually want to ban all guns, that what MOST of us want are simple common-sense gun control laws that do NOT significantly "infringe" on 2A rights...no, y'all can't even conceive that, huh?

Click to expand...

Why? Thou Shalt Not Question what the NRA tells you. To do so would be simply...unthinkable, huh?[/QU

Click to expand...

Okay. please explain how your "common sense gun laws".. would stop ISIS from recruiting American citizens with no criminal history from purchasing firearms and committing terrorist attacks.

Tell me how your gun laws are going to prevent American citizens with no criminal records from purchasing guns... without uhhh.. preventing American citizens with no criminal records from purchasing guns.

Hold on everyone.. this is going to be good...:mrgreen:

I am pro 2nd.

I do not want full autos in the hands of average citizens.

I do not want guns in the hands of the freaking ignorant idiots who buy firearms without proof of training.

I want laws passed to ensure that private citizens do not sell a personal weapon to someone without a background check.

I want the anti gunners to shut the **** up about AR-15's.

Glen Contrarian said:

Yet again, all y'all can think of is "those damn liberals just want to ban all the guns!" The simple FACT that very, very few of us actually want to ban all guns, that what MOST of us want are simple common-sense gun control laws that do NOT significantly "infringe" on 2A rights...no, y'all can't even conceive that, huh?

Why? Thou Shalt Not Question what the NRA tells you. To do so would be simply...unthinkable, huh?

Click to expand...

no what you want is to harass conservative gun owners and weaken the power of the NRA. all we hear from the Bannerrhoid movement is that they want the "NEXT REASONABLE STEP" once that is passed then the next and so on.

Thorgasm said:

It ain't gonna happen. The closest thing they could do is institute an ammunition tax.

Click to expand...

which only harasses recreational shooters and those who compete. Criminals don't use all that much ammo

Glen Contrarian said:

Yet again, all y'all can think of is "those damn liberals just want to ban all the guns!" The simple FACT that very, very few of us actually want to ban all guns, that what MOST of us want are simple common-sense gun control laws that do NOT significantly "infringe" on 2A rights...no, y'all can't even conceive that, huh?

Why? Thou Shalt Not Question what the NRA tells you. To do so would be simply...unthinkable, huh?

Click to expand...

Common sense gun laws to cut down on murders I assume. Yet where is the common sense in banning the guns that are used in only 1% of murders. Can you even define common sense gun laws?

Glen Contrarian said:

Okay. I'll define what I support. Again.

- background checks required for ALL sales, including private sales.

- registration of all firearms. This has the dual effect of enabling background checks of private sales AND being able to track down and identify gun smugglers...like the ones who smuggle almost a quarter million firearms per year into Mexico. And no, Nazi Germany is NOT a good example of why full registration is a bad idea...because unlike Nazi Germany, we are not a tyranny. We are a first-world democracy...and ALL the other first-world democracies do have full registration, and not a single one of them have devolved into a tyranny as the NRA seems to believe is inevitable when full registration is implemented.

- required notification of the police whenever a firearm is lost or stolen.

- required firearm safety courses before first owning a firearm. None should be needed after the first course.

- personally, I'd prefer required insurance for firearm ownership...but I don't think that one is politically possible.

It boils down to this: make it easy for bad guys to get firearms, and more bad guys WILL get firearms. Make it harder for them to do so, and while many still will, many WON'T...and the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear firearms is still protected.

Click to expand...

registration-unconstitutional and the holy grail of the Bannerrhoid movement. Most people won't comply so you want to turn anyone who doesn't voluntarily register their weapon into a criminal. Typical Bannerrhoid thinking and guess what, under established US SUPREME COURT precedent, CRIMINALS CANNOT EVEN BE indicted, let alone prosecuted for refusing to register weapons.

You ignore what happened in ENGLAND and AUSTRALIA registered firearms were confiscated.

you are a gun banner because you are on record wanting to impose requirements on honest people that don't even apply to criminals. When your stupid proposals don't do squat, you are addicted to wanting more restrictions.

you don't protect honest gun owners at all with those idiotic proposals

RetiredUSN said:

I am pro 2nd.

I do not want full autos in the hands of average citizens.

I do not want guns in the hands of the freaking ignorant idiots who buy firearms without proof of training.

I want laws passed to ensure that private citizens do not sell a personal weapon to someone without a background check.

I want the anti gunners to shut the **** up about AR-15's.

Click to expand...

what makes full automatics so scary to you?

TurtleDude said:

registration-unconstitutional and the holy grail of the Bannerrhoid movement. Most people won't comply so you want to turn anyone who doesn't voluntarily register their weapon into a criminal. Typical Bannerrhoid thinking and guess what, under established US SUPREME COURT precedent, CRIMINALS CANNOT EVEN BE indicted, let alone prosecuted for refusing to register weapons.

You ignore what happened in ENGLAND and AUSTRALIA registered firearms were confiscated.

you are a gun banner because you are on record wanting to impose requirements on honest people that don't even apply to criminals. When your stupid proposals don't do squat, you are addicted to wanting more restrictions.

you don't protect honest gun owners at all with those idiotic proposals

Click to expand...

I bought all my guns from private owners except my Ruger SR9c. If a law was ever passed to register guns I simply wouldn't. But look on the bright side banneroids, I'm sure I'll be the only one that doesn't.

TurtleDude said:

registration-unconstitutional

Click to expand...

False.

TurtleDude said:

and the holy grail of the Bannerrhoid movement.

Click to expand...

False.

TurtleDude said:

Most people won't comply so you want to turn anyone who doesn't voluntarily register their weapon into a criminal.

Click to expand...

Unlikely speculation, and it's also irrelevant (after all, we don't repeal laws against murder because it turns some people into criminals).

TurtleDude said:

Typical Bannerrhoid thinking and guess what, under established US SUPREME COURT precedent, CRIMINALS CANNOT EVEN BE indicted, let alone prosecuted for refusing to register weapons.

Click to expand...

And the court has overturned precedent before.

And the laws could change, anyway.

TurtleDude said:

You ignore what happened in ENGLAND and AUSTRALIA registered firearms were confiscated.

Click to expand...

And in the United States, even unregistered firearms are however occasionally confiscated *gasp*.

TurtleDude said:

you are a gun banner because you are on record wanting to impose requirements on honest people that don't even apply to criminals.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant ad hominem.

TurtleDude said:

When your stupid proposals don't do squat, you are addicted to wanting more restrictions.

Click to expand...

Speculation.

TurtleDude said:

you don't protect honest gun owners at all with those idiotic proposals

Click to expand...

False.

blaxshep said:

I bought all my guns from private owners except my Ruger SR9c. If a law was ever passed to register guns I simply wouldn't. But look on the bright side banneroids, I'm sure I'll be the only one that doesn't.

Click to expand...

Of course you would, the rest of us would all run down to the local police station and get our registered like good little sheep, trust me :wink2:

TurtleDude said:

what makes full automatics so scary to you?

Click to expand...

They shoot all by themselves, it why one has to keep them locked up so that they do not sneak out at night and shoot people, you cannot trust those full autos, not to mention they eat you out of house and home. Good grief TD, get some firearms education already, ever wonder where all your ammo goes, now you know. No need to thank me for the update, now go get them suckers locked up before it gets too late.

TurtleDude said:

what makes full automatics so scary to you?

Click to expand...

I love full auto's. I was a backup for the .30 cal mount on board the LST for repel borders, and it was a blast. I just don't want them available to the general public. What scares me is they would make their way into the hands of bad guys..........and a few burps from full auto could potentially have many casualties.

Glen Contrarian said:

Okay. I'll define what I support. Again.

- background checks required for ALL sales, including private sales.

Click to expand...

The Federal Government has no control over intrastate sales of guns. Its why they didn't add it in when they started mandating background checks from store owners. They're the only ones that they could argue as being interstate related. It'd be an over reach of Government power.

Glen Contrarian said:

- registration of all firearms. This has the dual effect of enabling background checks of private sales AND being able to track down and identify gun smugglers...like the ones who smuggle almost a quarter million firearms per year into Mexico. And no, Nazi Germany is NOT a good example of why full registration is a bad idea...because unlike Nazi Germany, we are not a tyranny. We are a first-world democracy...and ALL the other first-world democracies do have full registration, and not a single one of them have devolved into a tyranny as the NRA seems to believe is inevitable when full registration is implemented.

Click to expand...

Unconstitutional. It would violate peoples Right to Privacy. Now you could argue that there is no such Right. But then you'd be defying hundreds of years of precedence not to mention if such was argued Roe v Wade would end up in the garbage if it were ever successfully argued in SCOTUS. GL on that though.

Glen Contrarian said:

- required notification of the police whenever a firearm is lost or stolen.

Click to expand...

1: People can lie. If someone did report it as stolen there's no proof that it wasn't. So one could easily sell a gun and then a couple days later claim it was stolen. 2: Not everyone checks their gun drawer every night. If the police happened to come across a gun that was stolen and wasn't reported its quite reasonable to believe that the person didn't even know that it was stolen if they make such a claim.

Glen Contrarian said:

- required firearm safety courses before first owning a firearm. None should be needed after the first course.

Click to expand...

If its free and provided by the state then I don't mind this. Otherwise its nothing more than a way to increase the amount of money people have to pay. IE: its a back handed way of trying to reduce the amount of people that can afford to buy a gun. But I've got a feeling that you'd have no problem making gun owners pay for this either personally or through a gun tax designed to target gun owners or buyers only.

Glen Contrarian said:

- personally, I'd prefer required insurance for firearm ownership...but I don't think that one is politically possible.

Click to expand...

Idiotic. This is meant for nothing more than making the cost of owning/buying a gun more expensive in order to try and reduce the amount of people owning a gun. It does NOTHING to stop the criminals and does nothing but target honest gun owners. Between this one and the above one its obvious that your aims are towards honest gun owners and not the criminal element.

Glen Contrarian said:

It boils down to this: make it easy for bad guys to get firearms, and more bad guys WILL get firearms. Make it harder for them to do so, and while many still will, many WON'T...and the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear firearms is still protected.

Click to expand...

Funny, your last two suggestions have NOTHING to do with criminals in even the slightest way.

PS: I note that you didn't respond to my last post...how come?

TurtleDude said:

which only harasses recreational shooters and those who compete. Criminals don't use all that much ammo

Click to expand...

That's why my father would make his own ammo.

RetiredUSN said:

I love full auto's. I was a backup for the .30 cal mount on board the LST for repel borders, and it was a blast. I just don't want them available to the general public. What scares me is they would make their way into the hands of bad guys..........and a few burps from full auto could potentially have many casualties.

Click to expand...

what makes an M16 more dangerous than an AR 15 and why does the second amendment cease to operate based on how fast a hand held, individual rifle fires

Dragonfly said:

Click to expand...

that's really stupid. Obama didn't take peoples' guns because he didn't have the votes in the senate since Harry Reid was scared of losing his seat and his leadership position. His first Supreme Court pick voted against gun rights when she voted. One more like her and there would have been no bar -other than votes-to the government banning all kinds of guns like it did in 94. BTW abortion rights never went away under Bush despite what the pro-abortion movement claimed. Why? there weren't the votes

Absentglare said:

False.



False.



Unlikely speculation, and it's also irrelevant (after all, we don't repeal laws against murder because it turns some people into criminals).



And the court has overturned precedent before.

And the laws could change, anyway.



And in the United States, even unregistered firearms are however occasionally confiscated *gasp*.



Irrelevant ad hominem.



Speculation.



False.

Click to expand...

'so what is the holy grail to the Bannerrhoid movement? You claim not to be part of that so where is your facts. The rest of your response is just plain worthless

TurtleDude said:

'so what is the holy grail to the Bannerrhoid movement? You claim not to be part of that so where is your facts. The rest of your response is just plain worthless

Click to expand...

There isn't a holy grail and there isn't a bannerrhoid movement.

There are people who employ common sense, and then there are people who are too heavily invested on an emotional level to do so. Those who are too emotionally invested are represented on both sides of the gun control issue.

Absentglare said:

There isn't a holy grail and there isn't a bannerrhoid movement.

There are people who employ common sense, and then there are people who are too heavily invested on an emotional level to do so. Those who are too emotionally invested are represented on both sides of the gun control issue.

Click to expand...

So I will dismiss your comments as having no value and no common sense. The fact is-registration is the took all gun banners and most gun restrictionists want in order to further their nefarious schemes.

TurtleDude said:

So I will dismiss your comments as having no value and no common sense. The fact is-registration is the took all gun banners and most gun restrictionists want in order to further their nefarious schemes.

Click to expand...

This is precisely the type of conspiracy theory that helps explain why we have so many gun sales.

Absentglare said:

This is precisely the type of conspiracy theory that helps explain why we have so many gun sales.

Click to expand...

People like you used to say there would never be a gun ban


they were wrong

people like you used to say state governments would never confiscate legally owned firearms

they were wrong

when I claimed the NY mafia family (Cuomo) wouldn't stop with 10 round magazine limits, people like you said I was being paranoid

they were wrong.

when we noted that the California nutcases wouldn't stop with "bullet buttons" and ten round magazine limits, we were called Paranoid by people like you

they were wrong

the fact is, the gun control movement is a malignancy that never stops trying to restrict our rights more and more

and people like you who deny that are either dishonest or ignorant or both

Absentglare said:

There isn't a holy grail and there isn't a bannerrhoid movement.

There are people who employ common sense, and then there are people who are too heavily invested on an emotional level to do so. Those who are too emotionally invested are represented on both sides of the gun control issue.

Click to expand...

You the common sense proposal of by passing due process to take peoples gun away that were put on the no fly list?

Yeah, ignoring TWO constitutional rights in your proposal is just common sense.