Mock

I'm not missing the point. innocent until proven guilty. Its that simple. You live in this country, that is the law. Scrap that initial thought and you may as well scrap the entire system.

I think you are either missing my point or you don't care about a citizens rights. You cant take away someone's right to own firearms because of something they MIGHT do. You break the law you get punished. Not, if you might break the law you get punished. You cant take away someone's drivers license because they might get drunk and ram their car into a crowd and kill dozens of people. Public safety issue or not.

Yeah, you're missing the point.

Innocent until proven guilty is for courtrooms and applies to everyone accused of a crime in the U.S., even immigrants and visitors.

Remember that "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment? Well, it allows the government to restrict firearm sales to court-declared mentally ill people, to restrict sales to people dishonorably discharged from the military, to restrict sales to minors, to restrict sales to those with restraining orders against them........many of whom have not been found guilty of committing a crime. Instead, they've been deemed a risk to public safety. Perfectly Constitutional, as would be restricting firearm sales to potential terrorists (natural born or not).

Well regulated does not pertain to the ability to own. It pertains to the militia. You cant pick and choose parts of the second and move the wording and meaning around to suit your wants HotD

I quit. I should know better than getting into a discussion with you about guns. Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.

(11-21-2015, 02:28 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Well regulated does not pertain to the ability to own. It pertains to the militia. You cant pick and choose parts of the second and move the wording and meaning around to suit your wants HotD

You're picking and choosing, F.U. Not me.

The "militia" is all citizens and legal residents of the U.S. in terms of how the Second Amendment is applied to gun rights/laws today, is it not? Yep.

So, how do you think we're able to legally/Constitutionally deny gun purchase/ownership rights to ex-cons, abusers, minors, mentally ill?

Because, we're regulating the militia F.U. That's how.

However, gun control could be just as effective or more effective if instead of having background checks and disqualifying criteria for all of society, we instead defined membership in the public "militia" as only those citizens and legal residents who have passed a background check, served some time in the military, passed stringent psychological screening, achieved certificates in firearm safety and handling, etc..

No one outside that ^ qualified "militia" would be able to purchase or own a firearm legally. There would be many fewer legal gun owners, but much more responsible and qualified ones.

How does that grab ya?

(11-21-2015, 02:30 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I quit. I should know better than getting into a discussion with you about guns. Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.

I don't care that you think my opinion is wrong when we're discussing or debating issues.

I really don't understand why you care so much about being viewed as right.

But, go ahead and give up, quitter.

Will Obama Use Executive Action to Pass New Gun Controls?

I think he might. He doesn't have to worry about re-election and he's called his failure to get common sense gun controls passed the biggest disappointment of his presidency.

A group of 24 Senate Democrats urged the president Monday to dodge Congress and act on his own to make new rules on gun control, after Congress has failed to move any gun bills.

The letter said Democrats would keep trying to pass a gun bill, but said Obama should explore options on his own in the meantime.

"We ask you, concurrently, to investigate and pursue all available options under your executive authority to reduce gun violence," they wrote. "Specifically, your administration could take an immediate step that would have an important impact on limiting gun violence. We urge you to address an aspect of the high-volume gun seller loophole that allows guns to be sold without a background check by eliminating the ambiguity surrounding the term 'engaged in the business' as it pertains to federally licensed firearms dealers."

"It would help ensure that those clearly holding themselves out as gun dealers are held to the same standard as the thousands of responsible gun dealers already licensed with [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] ATF across the country."

The regulatory definition of "engaged in the business" would be tweaked to include all gun sellers, not just ATF-licensed individuals. Current law requires only licensed gun dealers to carry out background checks during gun sales.

In the House, Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Chair Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) sent a similar letter to the White House, with support from 114 of his colleagues.

Ref: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate..._click=rss

Meanwhile, Senator Feinstein's push to re-introduce the bill that would disqualify known and suspected terrorists from legally purchasing firearms is gaining traction.

The bill was originally proposed by George W. Bush in 2007, but was blocked by conservatives in Congress with ties to the gun lobby.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling on the GOP to get behind the legislation now.

Ref: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/reid-gop-supp...rists-guns

I don't get how a person that's not even a citizen can even legally buy a gun in the first place. Someone in the country illegally should not have a citizens drivers license. If they do have a license it should be plastered all over it that they are not a true citizen. It should be a non-issue. I'm taking for granted that that's the law anyways.

One thing I find odd is that 3 years ago [around the fast and furious scandal time] they revised the 4473 for one stupid question. Question #10 is about ethnicity. They made that a two part question that singles out Hispanic or Latino from the other 5 options listed. My question is why was that so important?

The ethnicity question is important enough that it is # 10 and before the 11 yes or no questions, but citizenship don't get discussed until questions 14, 5 & 20.

To be honest I have never had a person try and buy a gun that is not a US citizen so I really paid that area no attention before today.


Here is the 4473 pdf if anyone wants to read it. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

I see that they have a place for a US issued alien number or admission number. If they are not a citizen how do they get to have a firearm? And I see the separation with the Hispanic/latino box. Why is that separate? Inquiring minds want to know.

Both good questions. However we are dealing with our Gov and as we know they are experts at fucking shit up.

I forgot to factor that in.

Ho lee shit, that's a lot of guns !


Americans Bought Enough Guns On Black Friday To Arm The Marine Corps -

According to the FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer said Black Friday shattered the single-day record for gun sales – with 185,345 background checks processed in a 24 hour period. Those numbers ignore the 20 states that allow licensed concealed carriers to forego background checks on each purchase, in compliance with ATF guidelines. That means the number of firearms purchased on Black Friday is likely more than 200,000. -


http://truthuncensored.net/americans-bou...IO9h2.dpbs

They'll shoot their eye out!

>>>>>and at that moment Charlie realized his Mother was right.

(11-21-2015, 02:30 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I quit. I should know better than getting into a discussion with you about guns. Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.

Yeah. And Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.