Gun control

[stamperben]

What is the problem with a warrant-less search of your home to check your fire safety equipment? Your home catching on fire and you not having the knowledge and equipment to deal with it could spread fire to your neighbors!

You're a smart man. I don't see why, besides having some sort of agenda, you can not see the difference between a firearm and a fire extinguisher.

And what "warrant less search"? Where on earth do you get that out of anything I've said?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When are you people going to come into reality? NO ONE is out to confiscate your weapons!

Why am I not reassured (a little paranoia can be a good thing). They may not be in power yet, but they are out there.........waiting.

 

[stamperben]

Why am I not reassured (a little paranoia can be a good thing). They may not be in power yet, but they are out there.........waiting.

I note you left out the second part of that quoted post. Maybe it doesn't fit with some thought process involved here that a far left winger would fight to the last breath for you to keep firearms?

 

[Glas Ridire]

You're a smart man. I don't see why, besides having some sort of agenda, you can not see the difference between a firearm and a fire extinguisher.

I keep both for safety, misuse of either can get innocent people killed, but when they are used appropriately it is a good thing. Thank you for the compliment. My agenda is safety with a side dish of personal responsibility, but I have never been evasive about that.

And what "warrant less search"? Where on earth do you get that out of anything I've said?

When you read the 4th, how does it go?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I bolded the relevant. You know me as well as anybody can know someone in this kind of venue, you'll recall I keep firearms, that I hunt, that I am not really sure if I walked before I took my first shot, I shoot in my back yard because I live in the country so I can, that I have some professional acquaintance with State sanctioned use of force on the behalf of the State, etc. What the specifics of my qualifications are, are listed on papers, which are mine and I have 4th amendment rights. The effects. . .. the guns I carry and the ones in my safe are also protected. Simply owning a legal piece of safety equipment is not usually grounds for a warrant, so that leaves warrant-less search. . .. which is illegal.

 

[stamperben]

I keep both for safety, misuse of either can get innocent people killed, but when they are used appropriately it is a good thing. Thank you for the compliment. My agenda is safety with a side dish of personal responsibility, but I have never been evasive about that.


When you read the 4th, how does it go?

I bolded the relevant. You know me as well as anybody can know someone in this kind of venue, you'll recall I keep firearms, that I hunt, that I am not really sure if I walked before I took my first shot, I shoot in my back yard because I live in the country so I can, that I have some professional acquaintance with State sanctioned use of force on the behalf of the State, etc. What the specifics of my qualifications are, are listed on papers, which are mine and I have 4th amendment rights. The effects. . .. the guns I carry and the ones in my safe are also protected. Simply owning a legal piece of safety equipment is not usually grounds for a warrant, so that leaves warrant-less search. . .. which is illegal.

I've no response to this for I have no intention of letting anybody trash our Constitution.

But I will reiterate my belief that at a minimum having background checks on gun sales, and yes, even the registration of those weapons, in no way goes against the words in that document.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I note you left out the second part of that quoted post. Maybe it doesn't fit with some thought process involved here that a far left winger would fight to the last breath for you to keep firearms?

I do appreciate that you would fight to support gun rights. My position is that I don't want to have that fight.

 

[Glas Ridire]

I've no response to this for I have no intention of letting anybody trash our Constitution.

But I will reiterate my belief that at a minimum having background checks on gun sales, and yes, even the registration of those weapons, in no way goes against the words in that document.

I have no problem with background checks for FFL sales (which often involve a fee), what I do have a problem with is a mandatory background checks (which would also likely need a FFL and that fee) for any transfer of firearms. To put this in perspective, I build and collect firearms . . . I could arm at least 1/2 a platoon with what I have on hand in the house & most of it is semi-auto reconstructions of military hardware. My father has the family gun collection, an archive of historical weapons handled and handed down through the family through every great US war prior to 1900 and a decent collection of other stuff. We have both gone through countless background checks for new weapons we have traded through FFL's and our state firearms licenses. Why should I have to pay $50 to let my father borrow a squirrel gun, and as much to get it back? If we decide to swap his Mosin Sniper for my Mossin M44, why should it cost our family $100? When (God keep the day long away) my father passes, should I have to undergo a background check for each of the family heirloom guns and pay a $50 transfer fee? If so, I'd agree, if every individual item given to individuals each carried with it a $50 fee. You can't get your grandma's salt and pepper shakers without paying a $50 fee for each. Make it universal, get the votes and I am on board, hold that to guns and NO!

Yet this is what universal background checks is about. It isn't about gun crime. It isn't about Sandy Hook. It is about making gun ownership so expensive that minorities and poor can't scrape up the dough, middle class has to sell off heirlooms they can't afford to transfer, and the elites. . . enjoy their status as politburo members.

 

[stamperben]

Why should I have to pay $50 to let my father borrow a squirrel gun, and as much to get it back? If we decide to swap his Mosin Sniper for my Mossin M44, why should it cost our family $100? When (God keep the day long away) my father passes, should I have to undergo a background check for each of the family heirloom guns and pay a $50 transfer fee?

This was NOT in the bill that Congress ended up not passing and I'm sure you know that.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I have no problem with background checks for FFL sales (which often involve a fee), what I do have a problem with is a mandatory background checks (which would also likely need a FFL and that fee) for any transfer of firearms. To put this in perspective, I build and collect firearms . . . I could arm at least 1/2 a platoon with what I have on hand in the house & most of it is semi-auto reconstructions of military hardware. My father has the family gun collection, an archive of historical weapons handled and handed down through the family through every great US war prior to 1900 and a decent collection of other stuff. We have both gone through countless background checks for new weapons we have traded through FFL's and our state firearms licenses. Why should I have to pay $50 to let my father borrow a squirrel gun, and as much to get it back? If we decide to swap his Mosin Sniper for my Mossin M44, why should it cost our family $100? When (God keep the day long away) my father passes, should I have to undergo a background check for each of the family heirloom guns and pay a $50 transfer fee? If so, I'd agree, if every individual item given to individuals each carried with it a $50 fee. You can't get your grandma's salt and pepper shakers without paying a $50 fee for each. Make it universal, get the votes and I am on board, hold that to guns and NO!

The people who rant and rave about "military style" weapons amuse me when I have a safe full of *actual* military weapons.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Supporters of the Constitution have to love the stunning defeat of all gun control legislation in the Democrat controlled Senate. Honestly, I expected the background checks to die in the House, but the Senate defeat is icing on the cake.

I also noticed that when 2000 police officers were pursuing 1 bad guy in Boston, a lot of them used full auto rifles. Not .45 or 9mm pistols or shotguns. I don't blame them - should I one day face criminals who want to attack my family in my home, I also want superior firepower.

 

[A2SG]

Supporters of the Constitution have to love the stunning defeat of all gun control legislation in the Democrat controlled Senate. Honestly, I expected the background checks to die in the House, but the Senate defeat is icing on the cake.

I'm a staunch supporter of the Constitution, and please stop trying to speak for me, because you're doing a bad job at it.

Because, y'see, having a minority of Senators doing the work of the NRA in direct opposition to an overwhelming majority of the American people isn't supporting the Constitution. Ever read the part about consent of the governed? It doesn't say consent of the special interests.

I also noticed that when 2000 police officers were pursuing 1 bad guy in Boston, a lot of them used full auto rifles. Not .45 or 9mm pistols or shotguns. I don't blame them - should I one day face criminals who want to attack my family in my home, I also want superior firepower.

Cops are part of a well regulated and trained force.

If you were a cop, and subject to the same rules and training as other cops are, I'd have no problem with you using any type of weaponry you'd need to do your duty.

-- A2SG, as to defending your home, well, is there some reason why you can't possibly do that with anything other than automatic weapons?

 

[dgiharris]

Supporters of the Constitution have to love the stunning defeat of all gun control legislation in the Democrat controlled Senate.

I'm just curious, why is it that people who really love the 2nd amendment and think it is sacrosanct usually have no problem whenever legislation is passed to limit the first amendment?

Why doesn't the zeal and need to protect the 2nd amendment apply to all amendments???

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I'm just curious, why is it that people who really love the 2nd amendment and think it is sacrosanct usually have no problem whenever legislation is passed to limit the first amendment?

Why doesn't the zeal and need to protect the 2nd amendment apply to all amendments???

I support the first amendment along with all the others. However, the President hasn't specifically targeted other amendments of the Bill of Rights, at least not yet.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I'm a staunch supporter of the Constitution, and please stop trying to speak for me, because you're doing a bad job at it.

Because, y'see, having a minority of Senators doing the work of the NRA in direct opposition to an overwhelming majority of the American people isn't supporting the Constitution. Ever read the part about consent of the governed? It doesn't say consent of the special interests.



Cops are part of a well regulated and trained force.

If you were a cop, and subject to the same rules and training as other cops are, I'd have no problem with you using any type of weaponry you'd need to do your duty.

-- A2SG, as to defending your home, well, is there some reason why you can't possibly do that with anything other than automatic weapons?

Where on earth did you get the idea my post was addressed to you? And no, I don't have a full auto to defend my home. That wasn't the point. The point is, I want access to superior firepower, or at the very least equal firepower. However, it is fully legal to own a full auto weapon, by the way. And, the court has ruled that protecting you in your home isn't the job of the police. It's yours.

 

[A2SG]

Where on earth did you get the idea my post was addressed to you?

You purported to speak for supporters of the Constitution, and as one, I disagreed with what you said on our behalf.

And no, I don't have a full auto to defend my home. That wasn't the point. The point is, I want access to superior firepower, or at the very least equal firepower. However, it is fully legal to own a full auto weapon, by the way. And, the court has ruled that protecting you in your home isn't the job of the police. It's yours.

Again, the police are a well regulated force.

But, as I said, since automatic weapons aren't required for you to defend your home, limiting their availability doesn't infringe your second amendment rights. You can still bear arms and defend your home without them.

-- A2SG, let's not forget: just because you want something, that doesn't mean you must have a legal right to it.....

 

[Wolseley]

in direct opposition to an overwhelming majority of the American people

Can you provide reliable proof for this assertion, or is this just media-influenced hyperbole?

 

[A2SG]

Can you provide reliable proof for this assertion, or is this just media-influenced hyperbole?

Politifact confirms it. The actual amount may vary from poll to poll, but it's still a majority.

-- A2SG, by any count...

 

[Wolseley]

Politifact confirms it. The actual amount may vary from poll to poll, but it's still a majority.

-- A2SG, by any count...

Mainstream media polls??? ABC, CNN, CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post?

Seriously? You think that constitutes solid, reliable proof of an "overwhelming majority"?

Wow.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The article title is so obviously biased, "Gabby Giffords says Americans "overwhelmingly" support expanding background checks" but I do think the majority supported some form of background checks, though it is impossible to say whether they would support the same if the checks resulted in any possible use of a centralized database in the future.

 

[A2SG]

Mainstream media polls??? ABC, CNN, CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post?

Seriously? You think that constitutes solid, reliable proof of an "overwhelming majority"?

Wow.

Tell you what, you find conflicting data to refute it, and we'll compare sources, mmmkay?

-- A2SG, easy to play the dismissal game, but it's harder to come up with real facts yourself, isn't it?