jkcerda on 23/3/2018 at 16:39
Quote Posted by LarryG
Let me see if I get this right. You are perfectly willing to compromise on gun control laws so long as nothing discussed involves gun control laws.
I'm fine with the law passed the n post 329. You are in CA. And this state has gone full está d with feel good laws that do nothing so yeah no more of that
catbarf on 23/3/2018 at 16:59
Quote Posted by jkcerda
You know it's still no where near an m16 right. ?
Aside from literally every part save for the auto sear being a drop-in replacement, and even that can be installed with just five minutes of drilling a third pin hole? Or circumvented by using a lightning link?
I have issues with the 'military-grade' label myself but come on. You can easily build an AR-15 from an M16 parts kit and the only difference will be the lack of auto or burst, they're the same gun in all but the most uselessly pedantic sense. The differences between commercial-spec and mil-spec parts are manufacturer variations, not substantive design differences, let alone changes which have any effect on the performance of the rifle.
Nicker on 23/3/2018 at 17:16
Quote Posted by LarryG
Let me see if I get this right. You are perfectly willing to compromise on gun control laws so long as nothing discussed involves gun control laws.
Yup. That's basically jkcerda's argument.
Meanwhile, still waiting for gun enthusiasts to tell us what they will do to offer ANY protection from their fetish. Crickets.
jkcerda on 23/3/2018 at 17:32
Quote Posted by Nicker
Yup. That's basically jkcerda's argument.
Meanwhile, still waiting for gun enthusiasts to tell us what they will do to offer ANY protection from their fetish. Crickets.
you spelled "rights" wrong, and it's simple. don't break in or become a threat and you will live ..........well over 50 million gun owners out there and well over 300 million guns as well, if we were as violent as you liberals pretend we are there would be no liberals left :p
I also posted a law that I am fine with on post 329, no problems with back ground checks for purchase both private & commercial.
catbarf on 23/3/2018 at 17:34
Quote Posted by Nicker
Meanwhile, still waiting for gun enthusiasts to tell us what they will do to offer ANY protection from their fetish. Crickets.
I gave a brief list of suggestions on the second page.
Quote Posted by catbarf
Off the top of my head:
-The overwhelmingly most common source of firearms used in crime is straw purchase. Currently the DoJ lacks the resources to prosecute straw purchase, making it an easy way for gangs to acquire guns, and the people who illegally buy firearms for felons suffer no punishment. Earmark additional funding to straw purchase law enforcement, and assign straw purchasers liability for crimes committed with the weapons they purchase.
-The second most common source of firearms is law-breaking FFL holders (sellers), but the ATF only has the resources to investigate each FFL on average once every 27 years. Earmark additional funding to FFL auditing.
-Revise HIPAA's interaction with the NICS to ensure that mental health records are being ingested into the background check system.
-Increase liability on stolen firearms, especially if they were not adequately secured when stolen. Too many unsecured guns wind up on the street through theft.
-Allow background checks for non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales. Senator Coburn had a pretty good proposal a few years ago, based on the Swiss model.
-Subject handgun sales to ATF investigation similar to that on Form 1 applications, to provide a little more scrutiny on their sale and transfer.
Is there anything in there you'd like to discuss?
Nicker on 23/3/2018 at 19:46
Quote Posted by catbarf
I gave a brief list of suggestions on the second page. Is there anything in there you'd like to discuss?
Fair enough. Are these federal or state regulations / jurisdictions? Are you OK with states doing the regulation or would you agree that firearms need to be a federal matter?
Nicker on 23/3/2018 at 20:01
Quote Posted by jkcerda
you spelled "rights" wrong, and it's simple. don't break in or become a threat and you will live ..........well over 50 million gun owners out there and well over 300 million guns as well, if we were as violent as you liberals pretend we are there would be no liberals left :p
I also posted a law that I am fine with on post 329, no problems with back ground checks for purchase both private & commercial.
The right is to own firearms as part of a well regulated militia, not a private army of one. The elevation of guns to
bestowed by gawd is a fetish, not a right.
You don't have to break in or threaten anyone to become a victim of gun violence - you just have to go to school.
Offering the continued existence of liberals is proof that regulations are sufficient is pure straw-man, since nobody has suggested that all gun owners are murderers. Either talk straight or tell jokes but stop mixing them up just so you can back track at will.
Your appeal to "William's bill" is pretty lame considering your blanket refusal to consider anything infringing on your ""rights"", regardless of the rights of others.
jkcerda on 23/3/2018 at 20:04
Quote Posted by Nicker
The right is to own firearms as part of a well regulated militia, not a private army of one. The elevation of guns to
bestowed by gawd is a fetish, not a right.
You don't have to break in or threaten anyone to become a victim of gun violence - you just have to go to school.
Offering the continued existence of liberals is proof that regulations are sufficient is pure straw-man, since nobody has suggested that all gun owners are murderers. Either talk straight or tell jokes but stop mixing them up just so you can back track at will.
Your appeal to "William's bill" is pretty lame considering your blanket refusal to consider anything infringing on your ""rights"", regardless of the rights of others.
militia? nah here you go
[video=youtube;P4zE0K22zH8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8&t=4s[/video]
been in school a few years, it's odd I was not a victim of gun violence as you imply .
if you need the supreme court ruling, then here it is
(
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)
Quote:
the Second
Amendment protects
an individual's right to possess firearms
LarryG on 23/3/2018 at 20:33
Penn and Teller are great magicians. That does not make them great constitutional law experts or even grammerians. ref. (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148601&page=7&p=2385262&viewfull=1#post2385262) and (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148601&page=8&p=2385385&viewfull=1#post2385385)
What about the repeal of the (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)) Dickey Amendment? Can we agree that we need actual research and data analysis into the issue of gun violence? Right now we are all talking from entrenched philosophic positions. While I am 100% certain that I'm right and the rest of you are wrong, I would much prefer to have actual scientific research data and analysis to prove that to all you bozo's so that we can then get on with the real work of passing laws which will have the effect of driving down gun homicides and suicides while letting the sportsmen just kill the wildlife or tear holes in harmless targets from a distance. Data driven change is what we need, but we don't have the data and have legislated against collecting and analyzing it to inform the debate. Why are the NRA and 2nd amendment hardliners against having actual hard data about the effectiveness of various controls? Ignorance is not bliss.
