• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

Thunder said:
we'e not talking about someone accused of a crime, now are we?

we're talking about folks wanting to buy a firearm. and if background checks can be instant & easy to produce for everyone, there should be no problem.

........but that's only if you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...

Background checks as they exist today are instant and easy to produce for everyone, and there is no problem. In Va, at least, a check takes less than 30 minutes under most circumstances, and convicted felons are barred from owning guns legally. So what is the problem?

I've said before, and I tend to remain consistent in my positions, I am not unhappy with federal regulations as they exist today. I have a problem with the states having the right to regulate my transportation of a personal weapon through their state. Someone in this thread stated that the states do not have the right to regulate lawful travel from state to state. So why should the states have the right to deny my rights to free travel, yet not have the right to regulate boat travel?
 
Thunder said:
no, its not gun registration.

digitized records as opposed to paper records...is simply an technological update.
Click to expand...


let me explain something you clearly don't understand

the dealers keep a record of who filled out 4473 forms and they keep a log of say a beretta 92 serial number BER00066555 that they received from Beretta USA that they sold to Johnny THunder on May 10, 2011. They don't send EITHER document to the ATF unless they close. If they close all such documents are sent to the ATF but there is no authority that allows the ATF to make copies of these documents for active shops nor create a data base of gun ownership from close shops. I believe dealers only have to keep records going back 7 years but I haven't checked the law since I actually represented dealers many years ago.

The ATF got in trouble with violating its powers. for example, under clinton they tried to do what was called a FORWARD trace to create statistics to help Clinton promote his moronic gun ban. They would go to FFL shops and root through the 4473s looking for sales of "assault weapons" and then take down the names of the purchasers even though there was no actual investigation concerning the weapons in question. Then clinton or his turds would claim that the ATF was tracing thousands of assault weapons hoping to convince the weak minded that these guns obviously were engaged in sinister activities due to these "official traces"

highly illegal
 
jimbo said:
Background checks as they exist today are instant and easy to produce for everyone, and there is no problem. In Va, at least, a check takes less than 30 minutes under most circumstances, and convicted felons are barred from owning guns legally. So what is the problem?
Click to expand...

In that case, then I have none. Now we can get back to how Bloomberg overstepped his authority.

j-mac
 
Thunder said:
you clearly don't own a gun, or know much about gun laws.

all gun sales require a background check, accept for private sales and gun-show sales.

and even many of the gun shows now have instant background checks.
Click to expand...

A. Own a gun.
B. Obviously have had a background check done as I obtained my gun legally.
C. Digitizing is what scares people and makes it easier for the government to track people.
D. You never answered my question about Ruby Ridge and the colossal errors of the DOJ when it came to a law abiding citizen owning guns.
 
Thunder said:
Bob Blaylock said:
On should never, ever, under any circumstances, be required to prove that he is entitled to exercise a Constitutionally-protected right.

The burden should always be is on one who wishes to deny the exercise of a right.
Click to expand...

sure, that's fine.

swipe your drivers license so I can make sure you ain't a felon and have the right to own a firearm.

or, give me your drivers license number, so I can look it up on the national database.

instant background check. :)
Click to expand...


No.

I am not under any obligation to prove that I am entitled to exercise a right. Not even to the point of showing you my driver's license or any other identification.

If you want to deny me the right to buy a gun, then it's on you to show up at the gun store, with documentation that proves that I am someone to whom that right may legitimately be denied. Perhaps a “wanted”*poster with my picture and name, showing that I am a fugitive charged with a felony.

The burden of proof belongs on the side that wants to deny someone a right; and not ever on someone who wants to exercise a right.
 
jimbo said:
Background checks as they exist today are instant and easy to produce for everyone, and there is no problem. In Va, at least, a check takes less than 30 minutes under most circumstances, and convicted felons are barred from owning guns legally. So what is the problem?...
Click to expand...

what's the problem?

folks are still somehow able to buy guns illegally.

how are they doing this? because folks are legally buying lots of guns at the same time, and then illegally selling them on the streets of Newark. did the dealer know the buyer was gonna do this? of course not.

also, the ATF keeps finding out that dealers are lying on their records, and not reporting gun sales, and then they go bust them. But these records come in months after the illegal activity. If the records were digital & instant, as they should be in the ****ing second decade of the damn 21st century, these things might happen quicker.

the ATF shouldn't have to rely upon the honesty & integrity of gun dealers, to get their wholesale/retail sales records. that's just insane.
 
Thunder said:
we're not talking about the machanics of firearms. we're talking about gun laws.

if you want to start another thread about the in's & out's of specific firearms, feel free.

and btw, I have shot more than a couple guns in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
No. We are talking about the subject, you have displayed an appaling lack of knowledge about the constitution, in fact you pretty much empowered the same failed judicial eras of the past that agreed with your bastardized reading of the constitution trying to make your point. You do not understand the second amendment or the commerce clause or intentionally go with your preferred interpretation of such(the flawed reading of course). I will say this, if you don't even know the principle of firearms that all share(blackpowder to revolvers to autos to artillery) which ties them all into the firearms family. If you don't know basic crime statistics which you have shown a deficiency of understanding, etc. then your opinion is not a fully formed one and based on little more than emotion. Thus it is useless.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No. We are talking about the subject, you have displayed an appaling lack of knowledge about the constitution, in fact you pretty much empowered the same failed judicial eras of the past that agreed with your bastardized reading of the constitution trying to make your point. You do not understand the second amendment or the commerce clause or intentionally go with your preferred interpretation of such(the flawed reading of course). I will say this, if you don't even know the principle of firearms that all share(blackpowder to revolvers to autos to artillery) which ties them all into the firearms family. If you don't know basic crime statistics which you have shown a deficiency of understanding, etc. then your opinion is not a fully formed one and based on little more than emotion. Thus it is useless.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, are we talking about me....or you?
 
AdamT said:
So you would say that convicted felons have a right to bear arms that cannot be abridged, yes? Will one pro-gun person at least have the balls to admit this? I could actually respect that position for at least being internally consistent.
Click to expand...

Not while they are in prison, of course. While one is in prison, serving a sentence for a crime of which one has been properly convicted, one suffers a significant abridgment of many of his normal rights.

Once one has completed his sentence—“paid his debt to society”—do we deny him after that his right to free speech, and freedom of religion? Do we deny him the right to security of his possessions, as affirmed in the Fourth Amendment? Do we deny him any of the other rights and protections that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

I see no reason why his rights under the Second Amendment should be any different. Once he has “paid his debt to society”, he does not owe society any further abridgment of any of his rights, until such time as he again commits another crime.
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, are we talking about me....or you?
Click to expand...
You. You have deferred to the lowest rated courts historically to assert your flawed position. You have nothing past "well I feel......" so excuse us for not giving a ****.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
...I see no reason why his rights under the Second Amendment should be any different. Once he has “paid his debt to society”, he does not owe society any further abridgment of any of his rights, until such time as he again commits another crime.
Click to expand...

you want repeat drug dealers, thieves, and rapists...to have the ability to buy a Glock????

no thank you.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You. You have deferred to the lowest rated courts historically to assert your flawed position. You have nothing past "well I feel......" so excuse us for not giving a ****.
Click to expand...

you speak for the whole forum?

huh..

:lamo


...oh, and btw...if you don't give a ****...than don't ****ing respond to my posts. :)
 
Thunder said:
you speak for the whole forum?

huh..

:lamo


...oh, and btw...if you don't give a ****...than don't ****ing respond to my posts. :)
Click to expand...
Let's see, you have about a 10:3 ratio against your position. Within that ratio everyone is telling you your arguents are full of ****. And, everyone telling you that you are incorrect has brought facts. Face it, you lose.
 
Thunder said:
Bob Blaylock said:
…The courts have no authority to create new law…
Click to expand...

that's not what I said.
Click to expand...

What you said was…

Thunder said:
Decisions of the Supreme Court can sometimes be seen as creating new law.
Click to expand...

I am saying that when the courts return such a ruling, they are doing so illegitimately. They do not have the authority to create new law. Period. If they issue a ruling which “can sometimes be seen as creating new law”, then they are usurping power that does not belong to them.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
...They do not have the authority to create new law.....
Click to expand...

sometimes its an inadvertent result of their ruling.

if the SCOTUS rules on an issue that did not exist in 1787, its possible that this ruling may be interpreted as...and having the effect of, a new law.

its just the way things are. sorry.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Let's see, you have about a 10:3 ratio against your position. Within that ratio everyone is telling you your arguents are full of ****.
Click to expand...


no, only you are telling me I am full of ****.

but if you really think I'm full of ****, then don't respond to my ****ing posts.

:)
 
Thunder said:
what's the problem?

folks are still somehow able to buy guns illegally.

how are they doing this? because folks are legally buying lots of guns at the same time, and then illegally selling them on the streets of Newark. did the dealer know the buyer was gonna do this? of course not.

also, the ATF keeps finding out that dealers are lying on their records, and not reporting gun sales, and then they go bust them. But these records come in months after the illegal activity. If the records were digital & instant, as they should be in the ****ing second decade of the damn 21st century, these things might happen quicker.

the ATF shouldn't have to rely upon the honesty & integrity of gun dealers, to get their wholesale/retail sales records. that's just insane.
Click to expand...

you are speculating now. you don't understand that there is no authority for dealers to send ATF reports of who bought what.

and you ignore the fact that if someone buys more than one handgun from the same dealer WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS the ATF IS NOTIFIED OF THAT FACT.

I suggest that if this indeed is happening, then the ATF is not doing its job and if that is true more laws aren't going to help but it will certainly hassle dealers and owners more
 
Thunder said:
no, only you are telling me I am full of ****.

but if you really think I'm full of ****, then don't respond to my ****ing posts.

:)
Click to expand...
I've just been the one telling you straight that you don't know what you're talking about. The rest have been showing you indirectly, go read back.
 
Thunder said:
we'e [sic] not talking about someone accused of a crime, now are we?
Click to expand...

No, we're not. We're talking about people who wish only to exercise a right which the Constitution explicitly affirms, under circumstances where no evidence is at hand that they ought to be denied that right. You want them to prove that they are entitled to that right before they may exercise it. It doesn't matter how easy you make it to provide such “proof”, the principle remains the same. The burden of proof is not ever legitimately on someone who wants to exercise a right, but on someone who wishes to deny them that right. You want them to prove that they are not criminals before they may buy a gun. I say that they have no such obligation. The obligation is on someone who wants to deny them the right to buy a gun, to come forth at that time and prove that they are criminals and that legitimate cause exists to deny them that right.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are speculating now. you don't understand that there is no authority for dealers to send ATF reports of who bought what.

and you ignore the fact that if someone buys more than one handgun from the same dealer WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS the ATF IS NOTIFIED OF THAT FACT....
Click to expand...

notified, by whom?

the dealer? well, that means the ATF relies upon the honesty of the dealer. a digital record keeping system would solve that problem. such a system would not effect gun buyers one bit. if anything, it might make their transactions move faster, especially if their criminal record is on their drivers license and easily accesable with a card reader.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, we're not.....
Click to expand...

if you want to buy a gun in this country, you must go through a background check. that's unless you buy from a gun show or a private seller.

this process would be made EASIER & QUICKER...if your ability to own a firearm, was registered on your drivers license.

my solution, would make things easier & quicker for legal gun buyers.

but some folks are acting like it would make more of a hassle. I wonder why.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I've just been the one telling you straight that you don't know what you're talking about. The rest have been showing you indirectly, go read back.
Click to expand...

dude, you want to talk about me being full of ****, or the issue?

if you want to talk about me being full of ****, I suggest you ignore my God-damned posts, because its all you're talking about now.
 
Thunder said:
notified, by whom?

the dealer? well, that means the ATF relies upon the honesty of the dealer. a digital record keeping system would solve that problem. such a system would not effect gun buyers one bit. if anything, it might make their transactions move faster, especially if their criminal record is on their drivers license and easily accesable with a card reader.
Click to expand...

the dealer-who is subjected to yearly announced and unannounced inspections.

and if a dealer -during that inspection-is found to have not notified the ATF of a multiple sale he is going to be busted. and guess what-when the dealer calls in a purchase for the Instant BC, the checkers give the dealer a PROCEED and a code number. If the 4473 is missing that code or has a fraudulent one guess what-the Dealer is BUSTED. you see if I am a dealer I just cannot write on the 4473 that the purchaser passed the telephone initiated background check. I have to get a code from the BC agency which the ATF can check on.

and your suggestion has no merit. BC won't be any faster by the dealers sending stuff they are not permitted to send to the ATF, and which the ATF has no authority to collect
 
I'm glad to hear tha purchases of more than 5 guns at one time from the same dealer, requires a notice to the ATF. This is good to hear, thank you TD.

however, it still depends upon the honesty of gun dealers. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom