Proposed Gun License Law Has Some People Concerned (HR 45)

[davepc]

Gun sales have shot up about fifteen percent at local shops. According to some gun shop owners, the rush to buy guns may be in response to House Bill 45 - dubbed the "Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act" - which would keep closer track of who is buying guns and from where.

Currently, if you want to buy a gun, you must fill out a background check.

Under the new proposal, before you are able to buy a gun, you would have to present a license similar to a driver's license but this would be a gun license. You would have to show that to a shop owner at a gun store. He would then have to review it before you are able to purchase the handgun.

A hunter, Waylan Brannan, told KRIS 6 News, "I think it would just be an extra cost." He added that he felt the current background check is already sufficient and although he does not support the proposed law, "It wouldn't deter me because I've been hunting since I was eight or nine years old."

When asked if he was worried if the bill could negatively affect his business, Sharp Shooter Gun Shop Andy Benning replied, "In the longer term it definitely would. It's one more hoop to jump through in order to go hunting."

However, most people 6 News spoke with said if H.R. 45 were passed they would comply.

...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29338891/

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Bigger. Fish. To. Fry. n/t

[geckosfeet]

2. Having a license is already the law of the land in some states.

Welcome to the twenty first century.

[davepc]

4. This is a federal law.

[geckosfeet]

6. Yes. I know. And from what I read, less intrusive than the licensing process in some states.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

15. To which I respond, "I feel bad your rights are licensed to you." (n/t)

[rfranklin]

3. I have a gun purchaser's licence in NJ

If you have a clean record, it's not so hard to obtain.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

5. Make it FREE and give one to EVERYONE...

Only withold a licenses to anyone prohibited from owning a firearm.
Only then will it not be an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

While we're at it we can issue voter ID cards, Free Speech cards, and Permits allowing Life Liberty and The Pursuit of happiness.
Hell, we could distribute little copies of the constitution like punch cards... Just punch the rights that apply to you.
(Watch out for hanging chads)

[iverglas]

7. I'm confused ..........

Make it FREE and give one to EVERYONE...
Only withold a licenses to anyone prohibited from owning a firearm.
Only then will it not be an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

Well, leaving aside that free jazz, from whom else would it be withheld?

Well, maybe children, eh?


While we're at it we can issue voter ID cards, Free Speech cards, and Permits allowing Life Liberty and The Pursuit of happiness.

Huh. Are there circumstances that disqualify people from exercising the right to free speech?

What I really want to know is: if you can't be prohibited from exercising the right to free speech, how come you can be prohibited from exercising the right to own a firearm???

[yay]

8. Even better

If you can be have your right to bear arms restricted, why not your right to a fair trial, or right against unnecessary search and seizure.

Slippery slopes are slippery

[iverglas]

11. well, we were talking about free speech

If you don't think your ability to exercise that right is restricted, and with justification, you aren't paying attention.

Do you think people with serious criminal convictions should be permitted to possess firearms?

No?

Then obviously you think that there is justification for restrictions on the exercise of the right to possess firearms.

You just think that the only restrictions that are justified are the ones you happen to approve of.

And that isn't how it works.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

13. The point of complaint is needless registration...

Everyone, once of age, in America is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. If a citizen acts irresponsibly (criminals) they loose the right to keep and bear arms. They had their chance, and they blew it. So to answer your question: No, serious criminal convicts should not be permitted to posses firearms. Felons may loose many rights in consequence to their actions... firearm ownership is no different.

NICS background searches, for the most part, are very effective at barring criminal firearms purchases from FFL dealers.
All FFL dealers have access to the NICS background searches and are required to use them.
What problem is this a solution to?
Just what is the increased benefit of this "Firearms License" legislation?

I'll save you the mental strain of formulating an answer...
Nothing. It's a card carried around saying I can own firearms. Well, NICS is a phone number to be called to verify firearm ownership eligibility. Cards can be lost, stolen, and even counterfeited. Last I checked, the NICS database is kind of difficult to lose, steal, or feign. Licenses require time and most likely money to procure. NICS proves to be very minimal burden to dealers or citizens. Licenses mean that dealers must be trained or possibly require some kind of scanning technology if the licenses are sophisticated, both costing money.

It's feel-good political BS legislation... costing money and offering no results.
The only thing this system could possibly add is burden to supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
Licensing our constitutional rights... now there's a real progressive mindset. :puke:

[iverglas]

17. uh oh

Felons may loose many rights in consequence to their actions

It's those UNALIENABLE rights again. The things you can't buy, sell, barter ... have taken away from you ... or kinda just mislay.

Except in those places that still practise civil death. Like the USofA. And nowhere else in the civilized world.

Individuals convicted of serious criminal offences in Canada, f'r instance, do not "lose" any rights. If a firearms prohibition order is imposed as part of a sentence, they are prohibited from possessing firearms for the term of the order. And if they're sentenced to incarceration, they get to vote in elections while they're there.

Licensing our constitutional rights... now there's a real progressive mindset.

I do believe it is people who are licensed, not rights. But whatever.

Tried to get married without a licence lately?

[TheWraith]

10. I believe his point is the convenience/inconvenience factor.

Take me for example: I'm fully permitted to own a firearm, and have passed the NICS background check (having never had so much as a speeding ticket). By all standards of law, I'm entitled to own whatever legal gun I want. However, if I wanted to purchase a pistol--not even for concealed carry, but simply to have in case of emergency--I would need to find out which local justice handles permits, go through whatever hoops they cared to add, and then receive an answer some time within six months. And with no guarantee that it would be issued: maybe the justice was in a bad mood that day, or didn't like the way I look, or is a Republican and knows I'm a Democrat, etcetera. And there's all sorts of other restrictions on it.

It's kind of like the issue of "Free Speech Zones" for protestors: making it so difficult to exercise your right to do something that it becomes almost meaningless to still possess the right. I'm not sure if he was serious about issuing them to everybody, but if so it would at least eliminate the hassle for legal buyers.

Of course there's other inherent right-to-privacy issues with having lists of "approved" gun owners, even more so than the current "unapproved" list.

[iverglas]

12. you need to get yourself a better system

However, if I wanted to purchase a pistol--not even for concealed carry, but simply to have in case of emergency--I would need to find out which local justice handles permits, go through whatever hoops they cared to add, and then receive an answer some time within six months. And with no guarantee that it would be issued: maybe the justice was in a bad mood that day, or didn't like the way I look, or is a Republican and knows I'm a Democrat, etcetera.

No Canadian would ever put up with that kind of crap, eh?

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

14. Who said anything about Canada?

Since you Canadians seem to be so enlightened, please entertain us with a system that works in the US*
:popcorn:


*proposed system must be Consitutional, doncha know.

[iverglas]

16. well ...

Eliminating the arbitrary exercise of discretion would be a start, doncha think?

Then there's requiring public officials to perform their duties within a reasonable time.

Or did you not grasp what I was talking about? Even though I quoted it?

[gorfle]

19. Neither will we.

No Canadian would ever put up with that kind of crap, eh?

Neither will we, which is why such a licensing system is doomed.

[iverglas]

20. "such a licensing system"

You mean, one that includes the kind of delay and arbitrary discretion as THE ONE I WAS TALKING ABOUT, the one the poster two whom I replied described?

Yes, like I said: no Canadian would put up with that kind of system.

Evidently, people in some US states do.

Weird.

[gorfle]

No...

You mean, one that includes the kind of delay and arbitrary discretion as THE ONE I WAS TALKING ABOUT, the one the poster two whom I replied described?

The poster said, speaking of the hassles he would deal with under the proposed licensing system:

I would need to find out which local justice handles permits, go through whatever hoops they cared to add, and then receive an answer some time within six months. And with no guarantee that it would be issued: maybe the justice was in a bad mood that day, or didn't like the way I look, or is a Republican and knows I'm a Democrat, etcetera.

You said no Canadian would put up with such a licensing system, but you currently already do. Oh the details of the hassle may be slightly different, but you've got the hassle nonetheless.

Evidently, people in some US states do.

Weird.

Thankfully, very few, and I'm working and contributing money all the time to reverse them. The tide so far seems to be going my way.

[iverglas]

22. No.

You said no Canadian would put up with such a licensing system, but you currently already do.

No. We do not. So you really ought to stop saying things that are not true.

The Canadian firearms licensing system does NOT allow for six-month processing periods for firearms licence applications.

The Canadian firearms licensing system does NOT allow for the exercise of arbitrary discretion in the issuing of firearms licences.

Got it now?


The poster said, speaking of the hassles he would deal with under the proposed licensing system

It was apparent to me that the poster was speaking of the hassles he would deal with under the EXISTING licensing system where he is.

If I interpreted that incorrectly, perhaps he'll let me know.

If your interpretation is correct, I fail to see why anyone would propose a licensing sytem that incorporates unjustified delay and the arbitrary exercise of discretion, so we would seem to be talking about a straw licensing system in that case.

[gorfle]

30. But still.

No. We do not. So you really ought to stop saying things that are not true.

The Canadian firearms licensing system does NOT allow for six-month processing periods for firearms licence applications.

The Canadian firearms licensing system does NOT allow for the exercise of arbitrary discretion in the issuing of firearms licences.

Got it now?

Like I said (but you neglected to quote), the details of the hassle vary slightly, but it's still an unnecessary hassle.

Got it now?

If your interpretation is correct, I fail to see why anyone would propose a licensing sytem that incorporates unjustified delay and the arbitrary exercise of discretion, so we would seem to be talking about a straw licensing system in that case.

It could be you are correct and he was speaking of an actual licensing situation somewhere and not a hypothetical one.

In any case, such delays have been common place for things like Concealed Carry for decades. Fortunately most states have moved away from such hassles and moved to a "shall issue" position. Alabama is still a "may issue" state, which means you get your permit basically at the whim of the issuing authority.

I have no doubt that should any licensing scheme be put in place it will be made as painful as possible so as to deter firearm ownership. After all, the people pushing for such things are are people like you who have already stated plainly you don't care how long a background check takes.

[iverglas]

34. such continual disregard for truth

One would think you would live in a perpetual blush.


Like I said (but you neglected to quote), the details of the hassle vary slightly, but it's still an unnecessary hassle.
Got it now?

Yeah. I already got it. You are talking about something other than the subject of the discussion.


I have no doubt that should any licensing scheme be put in place it will be made as painful as possible so as to deter firearm ownership.

Do you hire your crystal ball out?


After all, the people pushing for such things are are people like you who have already stated plainly you don't care how long a background check takes.

Since you know that I have never said such thing, and in this very thread I have said that Canadians (me being one) would never tolerate the kind of delay under discussion, I'm left to guess why you would be saying something you know to be false.

[gorfle]

36. Yes, in fact.

Yeah. I already got it. You are talking about something other than the subject of the discussion.

The discussion is concerning the hassle of licensing schemes, which is precisely what I'm talking about.

Since you know that I have never said such thing, and in this very thread I have said that Canadians (me being one) would never tolerate the kind of delay under discussion, I'm left to guess why you would be saying something you know to be false.

It is not false. Here is where you said you didn't give a shit how long background checks took:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x201823#201853

*I* don't give a shit how long it takes to do it.

Do you hire your crystal ball out?

Yes, I have several crystal balls that I rent out regularly for a nominal fee, but only for sucking on. You are free to suck my crystal balls any time.

[iverglas]

39. methinks you try too hard

If only you'd try to do something worth doing, you might accomplish much.

The full statement in question:

YOU want it done instantaneously.
*I* don't give a shit how long it takes to do it.
*I* have no onus to come up with a way of doing something that YOU want done that *I* don't give a shit about.

Yes, you can interpret that as me saying that I consider a six-month delay in responding to an application as acceptable. If you're totally disingenuous.

If you were interested in civil discourse, you'd read it for what it was: a response to repeated badgering that I devise a way of INSTANTANEOUSLY approving an individual for firearms purchases.

Of course, the real deal is that once an individual does have a licence, everything after that actually is instantaneous. Just a check to ensure that the licence hasn't been revoked, I'd suppose.

[gorfle]

44. What's that sound? Peddling?

So I guess we can't hope for an admission that what you said here:

Since you know that I have never said such thing, and in this very thread I have said that Canadians (me being one) would never tolerate the kind of delay under discussion, I'm left to guess why you would be saying something you know to be false.

Was, actually, untrue, since you did in fact say such a thing.

Yes, you can interpret that as me saying that I consider a six-month delay in responding to an application as acceptable. If you're totally disingenuous.

Or, if you've paid any attention to Iverglas' ramblings for any length of time at all.

Your game is crystal clear, Iverglas, and I, like everyone else around here, interprets you just fine: You are totally uninterested, and in fact opposed to, any equitable solution that takes into account the interests of firearm owners. Zero. Zip. None. Zilch. Bottom line: You don't give a shit how long it takes to do background checks. In fact, you don't give a shit about any inconveniences that might be created as an obstacle to firearm ownership. In fact, you revel in them.

The post I quoted above just shows your true colors. You can back peddle all you like claiming it was something else, but we all know better.

[iverglas]

46. The world was created on the day you were born

Not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=172660&mesg_id=172890

Note the title of my post.

iverglas Donating Member
Thu May-22-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #32

33. well, there's one thing Canada does right!

"Oh, and of course after waiting several weeks or months to get your ID card, you have to wait 3 days before you can pick up your handgun."

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_ligne/form-assistance/PDFs/921_e.pdf

Application for a Possession and Acquisition Licence Under the Firearms Act
(For Individuals Aged 18 and Over)

PLEASE NOTE

- You must complete all sections of the form. An incomplete form will cause delays in processing your
application.

- Processing a firearms licence application involves a variety of background checks. In some cases, in-depth investigations are conducted. We require a minimum of forty-five (45) days to process your application.

- Once your licence application has been fully processed and you have met the eligibility criteria, you will be issued a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL).

- There is a minimum 28-day waiting period for all applicants who do not presently hold a valid firearms licence. A PAL is valid for a period of five (5) years.

-- and I can't for the life of me find it now, but I was just reading something the other day (you'll trust me on this) that said the 28 days was counted during the processing time, so there's no extra waiting time once the PAL is issued.

45 days ... six months ... just not quite the same thing.

The time taken to complete background checks ... the time taken by a public official who doesn't feel like doing his/her job ... just not quite the same thing.

Your statements ... the truth ... just not quite the same thing.

By the way, I do not peddle backs.

Do you make egg corn squash soup?

[gorfle]

54. HOLY SHIT IT'S ONLY A MONTH AND A HALF

You're so right, Iverglas! Who could possibly see a 45 day waiting period as inconvenient?!?!?

I mean, that's just so much more reasonable than the say, oh, zero days I wait here.

Gawd you sound like a fundamentalist's broken record. "The Truuuuuuth! Waaaaaaah! The Truuuuuuuth! Waaaaaa!"

Everyone here sees the truth. I am the redactor of Iverglas verbosity and innuendo into plain English, and it just chaps your ass that I'm stripping away your veil of verbiage so everyone can easily see the puss-covered face of bullshit underneath.

All you're left with is the old, tired, "B-b-b-b-but I d-d-didn't SAY that!!!"

We all know what you're saying.

[TheWraith]

24. Regrettably, New York is stuck with the system we have, at least for the moment.

It's called the Sullivan Act, and was originally put in place by a notoriously corrupt state senator. The idea was that by having a local official choose who got to have permits, they could prevent guns or other weapons (which includes knives, etc.) from falling into the hands of "undesirable" elements like immigrants, specifically Italians. I wish I was joking. It was passed way back in 1911 on a really nasty wave of xenophobic public sentiment. There's also some opinion that Sullivan wanted an unarmed populace so that his famous goon squads didn't have to worry about people with concealed weapons.

It's actually even worse in New York City, since the issuing officials there are notorious for not giving anyone a permit unless either they're a celebrity, politician, or can prove that someone specific has threatened their life. Hence, unless you're lucky enough to skate through the process, most NYC residents would only have the choice of buying a weapon illegally.

There's been speculation that the Heller vs. DC opinion might provide grounds for getting the Sullivan Act thrown out as unconstitutional, and a more reasonable law put in its place: something, say, that recognizes there's a difference between somebody buying a pistol in New York City and someone buying a pistol in the hinterlands. But that's quite a while out, even if it happens.

[iverglas]

26. uh

unless you're lucky enough to skate through the process, most NYC residents would only have the choice of buying a weapon illegally.

Actually, every NYC resident has the option of not buying a firearm. Do let us recall. And most are quite happy to exercise that option, I believe.

officials there are notorious for not giving anyone a permit unless either they're a celebrity, politician, or can prove that someone specific has threatened their life.

Some people seem to think that celebrities and politicians get to have guns because they're celebrities and politicians ... and not because celebrities and politicians are commonly targeted by violent whackos, for instance.

I'm not saying they oughta be allowed to possess handguns. Just that I'd prefer we not get all disingenuous when discussing the question.

something, say, that recognizes there's a difference between somebody buying a pistol in New York City and someone buying a pistol in the hinterlands.

Don't know what the difference might be, myself.


Nonetheless -- the point is that whining about an obviously defective licensing system, if that's what exists, is not an argument against a properly designed system.

[TheWraith]

28. Boy, you got contrary fast.

"Actually, every NYC resident has the option of not buying a firearm. Do let us recall. And most are quite happy to exercise that option, I believe."

And you know quite well what I was talking about. Don't play dumb.

"Some people seem to think that celebrities and politicians get to have guns because they're celebrities and politicians ... and not because celebrities and politicians are commonly targeted by violent whackos, for instance."

I seriously doubt that Senator Chuck Schumer, Howard Stern, and Donald Trump are personally taking care of their own security. All three have been issued permits by NYC officials. While there's truth to what you say, it's also well documented that NYC licensers are happy to issue a permit to a big name with very little fuss, while almost everyone else gets shut out.

"Don't know what the difference might be, myself."

There's more uses and reasons for owning a pistol in a rural area than in a city center, even though the crime is lower out here. It rarely takes the police less than ten or fifteen minutes to show up to a call. There's also a greater variety of wildlife: some hikers prefer to carry a pistol as insurance, in case they encounter a copperhead or aggressive black bear. Not to mention the not-so-wild life, like people's out of control dogs. My neighbor had a pair of dobermans who perpetually would cross over onto my property and challenge my dogs. Fortunately, they were smart enough never to let it turn into an actual fight, but a lot of dogs are only as civilized as their owners.

[gorfle]

18. You can.

What I really want to know is: if you can't be prohibited from exercising the right to free speech, how come you can be prohibited from exercising the right to own a firearm???

Firstly, as you know, you can be prohibited from exercising the right to free speech in certain cases. You cannot libel. You cannot yell "fire" in a theater.

Secondly, we have what I have heard you term "Civic Death" here. You can do things that cost you your rights. For example, committing certain crimes will cost you your rights to keep and bear arms.

[iverglas]

21. I love the smell of disingenuousness, any time of day

You say, quoting me:

What I really want to know is: if you can't be prohibited from exercising the right to free speech, how come you can be prohibited from exercising the right to own a firearm???
Firstly, as you know, you can be prohibited from exercising the right to free speech in certain cases. You cannot libel. You cannot yell "fire" in a theater.

Of course, what I REALLY SAID was:

Huh. Are there circumstances that disqualify people from exercising the right to free speech?
What I really want to know is: if you can't be prohibited from exercising the right to free speech, how come you can be prohibited from exercising the right to own a firearm???

Is it really that difficult to follow a thought from one sentence to the next?

Individuals, per se, may not be prohibited from exercising the right of free speech. Nobody singles out Individual A or Individual B and says: You! No more freedom of speech for you!

Everyone may be prohibited from exercising a right in certain circumstances, e.g. no one in a particular crowded theatre that is not on fire may yell "fire".

That is not relevant to what I said.


Secondly, we have what I have heard you term "Civic Death" here. You can do things that cost you your rights. For example, committing certain crimes will cost you your rights to keep and bear arms.

Yes, I know. That's why I said it. It's a shame and it's sad for you. And oddly enough, it is directly contrary to those words in your beloved document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Yep, that isn't the Constitution.

But it's kind of a guiding interpretational principle, ain't it?

[gorfle]

31. Beats the smell of bullshit, I guess...

Of course, what I REALLY SAID was:

Huh. Are there circumstances that disqualify people from exercising the right to free speech?
What I really want to know is: if you can't be prohibited from exercising the right to free speech, how come you can be prohibited from exercising the right to own a firearm???

Is it really that difficult to follow a thought from one sentence to the next?

Individuals, per se, may not be prohibited from exercising the right of free speech. Nobody singles out Individual A or Individual B and says: You! No more freedom of speech for you!

Everyone may be prohibited from exercising a right in certain circumstances, e.g. no one in a particular crowded theatre that is not on fire may yell "fire".

That is not relevant to what I said.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You asked are there circumstances that disqualify people from exercising the right to free speech.

Yes, there are, and I provided two examples.

If you are asking, which it now seems you are, are there circumstances where you can completely loose your right to free speech, no, I can't think of any.

Yes, I know. That's why I said it. It's a shame and it's sad for you. And oddly enough, it is directly contrary to those words in your beloved document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Yep, that isn't the Constitution.

But it's kind of a guiding interpretational principle, ain't it?

Personally, I love the idea of Civic Death. If you bite the hand that feeds you, you should not be surprised when that hand stops feeding you. I do not have a problem with people who abuse their freedoms being stripped of them.

So I don't have a problem with people being stripped of their right to keep and bear arms if they have been found guilty of certain crimes, or if they have been found mentally incompetent or dangerous.

As they say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". If speech or any other right could kill or injure when used, I wouldn't have a problem of people being stripped of those rights under certain conditions, either. But they don't, so we don't.

[iverglas]

35. how do you manage to get to work in the morning

when you are this muddle-headed?

You asked are there circumstances that disqualify people from exercising the right to free speech.
Yes, there are, and I provided two examples.

NO, there are not. If there are, in any event, they are NOT what you are putting forward.

No one in that crowded theatre is DISQUALIFIED from exercising the right to free speech.

Everyone in that theatre is PROHIBITED from exercising that right in a way that could cause harm.

Please think about it. These are two different things. Please try to see the difference.

Everyone in that theatre may walk out of the theatre and stand on a soapbox and deliver a stirring speech in favour of whatever cause catches their fancy.

No one in that theatre is DISCQUALIFIED FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

Please. Try.


Personally, I love the idea of Civic Death. If you bite the hand that feeds you, you should not be surprised when that hand stops feeding you. I do not have a problem with people who abuse their freedoms being stripped of them.

Personally, I - and every liberal/democratic/progressive soul on earth - find that to be about as distasteful an opinion as I can imagine hearing.

If you bite the hand that feeds you, you say. If you bite the foot in the jackboot, you might consider.

Whatever. With that kind of contempt for the very principles your country was founded on, I don't think I'll need to be hearing from you on the whole rights business again.

If rights are at whim, that means your rights too.

[gorfle]

37. Our ally, Iverglas.

Personally, I - and every liberal/democratic/progressive soul on earth - find that to be about as distasteful an opinion as I can imagine hearing.

If you bite the hand that feeds you, you say. If you bite the foot in the jackboot, you might consider.

Whatever. With that kind of contempt for the very principles your country was founded on, I don't think I'll need to be hearing from you on the whole rights business again.

If rights are at whim, that means your rights too.

Whoda thunk? Iverglas is one of our staunches proponents of firearm ownership. She doesn't want to screen people with mental health issues from owning firearms, out of respect for their medical privacy, and she doesn't want to screen people with criminal backgrounds from owning firearms, since she hates Civic Death.

Shit, why bother with NICS at all?

[iverglas]

38. just no respect for the truth at all, eh?

I got it. You don't need to keep demonstrating it.

[gorfle]

45. Keep up the good work, ally!

With your help, we'll get rid of NICS all together! Guns for everyone!

[Scout]

29. "You cannot yell "fire" in a theater."

i can if there is a fire....

[gorfle]

32. Really?

What brilliant intellectual insight you have brought to the discussion! Do continue.

[Longteeth]

9. Good post

Good point(s)!!!

[yay]

23. I think I'll be the only one to say..

I believe I'll be the only one on this forum that thinks a felon should NOT lose their right to own guns. My opinion is, if we can't trust you with a gun why the hell should we trust you on the streets? If you did the time and payed your debt to society you should not lose your rights.

Not to mention the sheer lunacy and/or corruption in our justice system. Two friends of mine were stupid and decided to tag an outhouse, they got caught. They come back on their own time and without a court order and completely repainted the small building. At their court date they were each going to get slapped with a felony(preventing them from owning guns) as well as charged with $2400 worth of damages(for a 7'X4'X8' building)+court fee's... The prosecuting attorney said they were "lucky" he was letting them get off with misdemeanors. Not to mention I remember reading an article just the other day about 3 judges getting money to send kids to private correctional facilities for even the mildest charge...

If our goal is to "prevent" future crime, why not stop pussy footing around the issue and REALLY deter future cirme. strip them of their 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights as well. They won't act up if the police can come in at anytime and send them right back to jail without a trial and without bail.

But we won't because guns are tangible and inherently evil, while the others are not.

I got my flame suit on so try your best...

[iverglas]

25. "strip them of their 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights as well"

So tell me ... are you a Democrat, democrat, liberal, or progressive?

[yay]

27. Hmmm....

You could loosely define me as a progressive. I really couldn't tie myself to any 1 political group.

[iverglas]

40. so when you say, in your profile,

"Just here to check out the opposing side"

-- you're referring to whom/what exactly, then?

Bloody duh.

[yay]

41. Correct, to a point.

Well when I joined the forum I was expecting mostly anti-gun big government democrats/liberals what have you. I will say I'm honestly surprised at the level of pro-second amendment people on the forum.

Hence "opposing side", as guns are very important to me(as you may tell from other portions of my profile) and have a lot of weight in who I vote for.

Tell me are you just spaming the thread to pick apart my political believes? Or are you actually going to contribute to the thread? Because frankly where I stand on the political spectrum has little to do with the thread at hand or my post. Why do you care so much? To be honest you might be surprised we may agree on a lot of social issues.

Now please contribute to the thread and leave me alone. I have no qualms in reporting someone.

[iverglas]

42. "I have no qualms in reporting someone."

Er ... ditto. And done.

"This forum" is actually Democratic Underground, you may have noticed. Not a guntalk forum.

[yay]

48. yet

Here we are in the "GUN" section of the site. From what I can tell it's here to discuss gun related politics which I am. You don't see me bragging about how I just picked up a Bulgarian SSR85 for $684 shipped, you see me discussing gun politics. Really you have nothing to report eh?

But you know I'm glad you're willing to prove how open you are by trying to stifle different and/or opposing view points.

[iverglas]

49. forgive me

but as we say in the law biz --

"Just here to check out the opposing side."

-- res ipsa loquitur.

But you know I'm glad your willing to prove how open you are by trying to stifle different and/or opposing view points.

And I'm glad your ... uh, you're ... willing to misrepresent preferring not to have to read crap in a forum made available for discussion among people with certain principles as "trying to stifle" blah blah.

Actually, I have no emotional response to that at all, of course.

[yay]

50. Right

The internet(more specifically forums) greatest feature is the ability for people to share and gather information and ideas with each other. Being locked into one believe and regarding others as "crap you have to read through" is not only ignorant, but down right disrespectful at best.

I posted some food for though, luckily you have the freedom to choose to eat it or not.

I came here to learn and observe, if you have something against that, well I don't really care because I have the freedom to be here until the moderators/admins decide otherwise. Since I have broken no rules(I don't remember reading a rule that required you to be a democrat to post)I have a feeling I'll be here for a while.

[iverglas]

52. "ignorant"?

Being locked into one believe and regarding others as "crap you have to read through" is not only ignorant, but down right disrespectful at best.

Ignorant of what?

One thing I'm not ignorant of, believe me, is the gun militant agenda and what the right wing will do to advance it ... I mean, the right wing agenda, and what the gun militants will do to advance it ... my sister ... my daughter ...

Disrespectful? Gosh. Is there nothing I may not disrespect then?

Guess I'll have to break that rule, wherever it came from.

There's lots of shit I disrespect. Trust me.

[yay]

53. "the gun militant agenda", lol

This post shows your true colors. I honestly had a good chuckle at your post, no offense. But "the gun militant agenda"? Man I've never read ANYTHING quite like that except in the book "Unintended consequences" in which the ATF agents often refer to gun enthusiasts as "gun nuts".

While I don't respect the out right slander of obama in the gun magazines, and I don't agree with the "FUCK OBAMA" lines people tend to put at the end of posts at arfcom. That doesn't make gun control advocates like the BC innocent players either. The sheer amount of outright lies and technical falsities on their website and on their videos leaves something to be desired.

Tell me. Why do you hold such hatred tward gun owners and gun enthusiasts? Why do you care if someone blow's $15-20-50-100-200-2,000-20,000 on guns and ammo to shoot at paper? Why is the choice of weapon they choose to use such a concern? More importantly why do you want to strip a group of people of their rights?

I'm pro-freedom, pro-self reliance, and pro-personal responsibility. I don't fit into either the left or the right wings, so labeling is fruitless.

[iverglas]

43. and btw

You could loosely define me as a progressive.

No, I couldn't. Not without twisting myself into so many knots it would be extremely painful.

"strip them of their 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment rights as well"

Really "progressive" talk, that.

Yes, I know, the word itself has been stripped of its meaning. But still. It really is not quite that elastic.

[yay]

47. Way to miss the point.

Right, you apparently missed the point of the post. I'm not advocating stripping people of their rights, I'm trying to point out the lunacy of taking away someones second amendment rights.

You are apparently the only one who didn't get my point.

[gorfle]

33. For my part.

For my part, I agree with you.

If someone has served their debt to society, then I agree, all rights should be restored.

The only reason I support the current way of doing things is because the anti-gun people are constantly throwing restrictions at law abiding citizens under the guise of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. If someone's going to have their rights restricted I would rather it be just the criminals.

But if we want to get rid of Civic Death and say that after you have served your sentence you have all rights restored, that's fine by me - just don't tell me about restrictions on firearm ownership you want to put in place to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Either you target the criminals or you don't. But you aren't going to target me either way.

[yay]

51. I'm glad I'm not alone

In believing that more people should be given a second chance in life. Even if they did screw up big time. I wish more people had this attitude, rather than wanting to put every criminal to death, or behind bars for life. Maybe if we gave them something to look forward too our re visitation rates wouldn't be as bad.