Right, of course if you are afraid, you can discount the missiles, but inevietably you will have to face the threat yourselves
|
Right, of course if you are afraid, you can discount the missiles, but inevietably you will have to face the threat yourselves
You are making the wrong argument . What you should be asking is why 10's of thousands of American troops are still based in western Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The horse is already out of the barn.. We patrol the world with our fleet keeping the sea lanes open... we don't do it for a fee.
Then why do you do it?
Hello again,
I need some right wing clarity, IF that's possible... We are NOW doing some background checks.. They appear to WORK, in that, there HAVE been some exconvicts who were CAUGHT trying to buy guns, and were sent packing.. But, because they WEREN'T prosecuted, the right wing doesn't want to expand the process..
Let me say that again. The background checks WORKED, but because the cops won't go after the guys who COULDN'T buy guns, we shouldn't prevent MORE bad guys from buying guns...
Have I got that about right??
excon
There's no other nation that will do it. Your nation is increasing relying on oil imports ;and yet you fail to see the importance of having free access though choke points like the Strait of Malacca . Maybe the Chinese fleet will keep the vital sea lanes in your backyard open for you.
I've addressed the background check bill already, it could make felons out of anyone going on vacation for more than 7 days or loaning a gun to a buddy. Sorry, but I'm not in favor of more stupid liberal legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:
Those are red herrings, or straw men. I NEVER know the difference...
But, if we can assume for a moment, that the FINAL version of the bill WON'T include the provisions you object to, but will SIMPLY be a background check on ALL gun SALES, to prevent bad guys from getting guns, would you be in favor?
excon
I'm still not tom but if the Obamacare bill is any indication no, I don't trust Democrats to put out a clean bill of any sort.
Hello again, Steve/tom:
Can you not answer my question? Are you afraid you'll look like a gun NUT if you do?? It's a BACKGROUND check.. I'd FAIL it. It'll STOP people like me from getting guns... Isn't that GOOD??
I KNOW you think we're ALL members of the excon club, so we have EASY access to all the guns we want. So, OF COURSE, we'll NEVER buy our guns at a gun show...
Really?
excon
Gun Control Policy: Universal Background Checks Aren't the Cure-all People Think They AreQuote:
It is a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.
It is a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check. This applies to all dealers, including at retail stores (like Walmart), gun shows, flea markets, or anywhere else.
It is a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent, or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase, or possess a firearm. The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or an alcohol or drug abuser is a 10-year federal felony.
It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. According to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice (DOJ), more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.
Seems there are already suitable laws in place. This rush to make legislation is a feel good bromide . Try enforcing the laws already on the books.
Hello again, tom/Steve:
Couple things.Quote:
Seems there are already suitable laws in place. Try enforcing the laws already on the books.
If I can go buy a gun at a gun show THIS WEEKEND, and I can, it would seem to ME that that there AREN'T suitable laws in place.. To ME, trying to STOP real BAD guys from BUYING guns IS pretty suitable... But, that's just me.
Secondarily, because the cops WON'T prosecute excons who LIED on a piece of paper, but were nonetheless PREVENTED from buying a gun, we shouldn't do background checks at gun shows??
That makes absolutely NO sense to me.
Excon
From the link... It is a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check. This applies to all dealers, including at retail stores (like Walmart), gun shows, flea markets, or anywhere else.
Edit... yes there should be presecutions. I already said the existing laws should be enforced
Hello again, tom:
Is that more red herrings, or more straw men? And, why can't you answer my question? You're NOT dumb. You KNOW that I can buy ANY gun I want from PRIVATE sellers who GO to gun shows to SELL their guns. They do that ALL across this great country of ours, even in NY..
You either KNOW that, or you're afraid if you tell the truth, even you, yourself, will think you're a gun nut.
excon
What Steve said.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again,
Just this morning, we've had page after page of obfuscation from my right wing friends. Either they have NO idea what I'm talking about or they're AVOIDING the question. Since I have NEVER known Steve/tom to be LACKING in facts, I must conclude they're AVOIDING the question.
We ALL know why. In the real world, they KNOW they're wrong.
excon
There's no obfuscation. We already have laws in place and the one proposed is BAD, I oppose it. That's pretty damn clear.
Restricting private sales at gun shows is not the same thing as universal backround checks. Also you are in denial if you think that will prevent any criminal from obtaining a gun illegally . Face it ;all the laws proposed are to restrict law abiding people from guns .
The laws are already in the books... if enforced... Here is the key part of the post
According to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice (DOJ), more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.
Why did 72,000 not pass? Maybe the world is safer because of that, despite no prosecutions came about.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Why would you prosecute someone that failed a background check unless other factors were involved? I know of no law that says a failure to pass is illegal in of itself.
So you would agree that we have backround checks in place already. Like I said... all the stuff going on is just bromides. It will have no impact.
I can understand how universal background checks would be useless, but I think the private gun-show and person-to-person sales should be regulated somehow. I suspect the Lanza shooting happened because the mom either did not secure her legally obtained guns or the son figured out how to get into her gun safe (if she had one). What can be done about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Education? The left uses that line whenever abortion and sex is the topic, why not guns? Actually I think they may have it backwards, why don't they want to educate about gun safety and not require background checks, licenses and "trigger locks" for teenagers? Far more people are harmed and killed every year due to irresponsible sex than gunshots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The underlying problem in the Lanza case is his mental health. New information reveals he spent hours plotting his attack . He treated it like a real life version of one of the video games he was addicted to . He kept score of previous mass shootings and had a goal of beating the totals.
Exactly, but even the mental health provisions need to be watched, check yourself in voluntarily to a hospital for a little depression for a couple days and the authorities just might come confiscate your weapons in California.
We can close some loopholes to what we have in place that people are using to get around the law. It's the same thing with taxes, abortions, guns and government.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What worked in the 70's may not work NOW, and requires some adjustments. If you aren't as smart as excon, you are in trouble, and don't be swayed because he is cute.
Didn't his mom ever go into the basement and see what he was up to? Did you read the news article about the college guy who had noticed something was up with his roommate and reported it, so the roommate ended up killing only himself, even though he had planned a mass shooting? We need to be less PC and stop dancing around each other when we see odd or abnormal behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think we need to stop being PC period. For instance I'll say "Washington Redskins" if I want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Here is what your missing in the process. Most background checks that are done today have a stipulation in them in that the back ground check is destroyed after it is completed. What the legislation is asking for is a gun registration program. That is a very different process. So most of the argument being made right now is not about the background check itself so much as it is the recording of who owns what and where.
This is a half truth. Where the line is and as far as the law in concerned is in the facts. So as a private sale that is going to take place the seller has to be reasonably sure the buyer can own the gun that is for sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
SO if you are the buyer and someone sells you a gun based on your good looks and doesn't bother to ask any questions then they could be guilty of a crime. If they ask the questions and you lie then you're the one guilty of a crime.
If you knowingly sell a gun through private sale to a person that you know can not purchase that weapon on their own then you are not only guilty of a crime but may be liable for any crimes committed with that weapon as an accessory.
I hope that clears it up.
It can be for any number of reasons. Also many states have a setup where you can pay a small fee and see without breaking the law if you can purchase one legally. So without seeing why a person was denied you can't actually tell if it was because of illicit behavior or not. It can be due to misunderstanding of the law and how it is applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yes it is. The reason being is that in order to create the background check you have to be purchasing a weapon first. It is listed in the background check as part of the process. So if you knowingly attempt to buy a weapon that you are not entitled to own you are breaking a ATF statuate. Hence your committing a federal crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Thank you for that clarity and if I may pick your brain what if one was a gun owner already and the circumstances had changed when he was buying another gun? Is this also a violation and would the fact he owned a gun before mean a surrender of his lawfully purchaced gun?
Yes it does like in the case of Domestic violence and restraining orders. Its not uncommon for a Judge to order all weapons away from the perp. There are several ways of dealing with it including a nominal fee being charged by your local LEO to keep the weapons for you to you outright selling them so they are not in your home or possession.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The Senate voted against ratification 53-46 .
Hello again,
This is nuts, if you think about it.Quote:
So if you knowingly attempt to buy a weapon that you are not entitled to own you are breaking a ATF statuate. Hence your committing a federal crime.
The law you're discussing has TWO benefits - one MAJOR and one minor. The MAJOR benefit is that it STOPPED felons from getting guns. That's what the law was DESIGNED to do, and it WORKED. The minor secondary benefit, is that a convict committed a crime by filling out the paper and YOU know WHO he is, so you can arrest him...
Regrettably, I've committed federal crimes before. None, however, as despicable as filling out an application for something I'm not entitled to... I would NEVER do that. My parents told me to NEVER do unauthorized applying... Fortunately, I've never succumbed to it..
Now, our wonderful right wing sees the MAJOR benefit in this law as the ability to arrest the wrongful applier - NOT the fact that he couldn't buy a gun. And, if the feds AREN'T going to arrest people for wrongful applying, then why try to stop them from getting a gun AT ALL??
At least that's the crack thinking of our right wing brethren. In the real world, it's BONKERS..
Excon
Ex you know its right, pen pushers have to get an opportunity to enforce the law too, that's what equal opportinity is about right and felons have to be given equal opportunity to break the law, if they are that stupid let them fry
UN Arms Trade Treaty Sparks White House Protests And Senate AmendmentsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The treaty wasn't killed, just delayed for further review.Quote:
In the predawn hours on Saturday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) proposed an amendment to the Senate's budget bill that would prohibit the U.S. from signing the ATT. The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 53-46.
During the same marathon legislative session, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) proposed a separate amendment affirming that international treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution, a direct jab at a worry expressed by groups like the NRA. Leahy's measure passed by a voice vote.
Both amendments will be worked on in a committee process and then proceed to the House. The Senate departed for Easter recess immediately after passing the budget bill.
Yes it's a rider to the Budget bill (what nonsense !) . But the budget bill was passed .
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What you have to understand is that many states have an avenue for getting cheked out without the purchase of a gun. Aif you apply there and fail the initial test then you simply fail. No crime is being committed. I think the reasoning is that should you be a felon or on a DM list your not suppose to be around guns in the first place. If you apply ( I think available online) and pay the fee you skate by. But should you knowingly walk into a gun store where many guns are present and then fill out a form for one you have picked out to buy. Then maybe that person needs to rethink what path they are on in life and not spring forth children. The gene pool is already contaminated enough.
Hello dad.
If so, then the reasoning is faulty.. The law is CLEAR. A felon cannot be in POSSESSION of a firearm. Being within 3 feet of a gun, say in a gun store display case, is NOT a crime..Quote:
I think the reasoning is that should you be a felon or on a DM list your not suppose to be around guns in the first place.
Now, if you're under state supervision, THEN you can't be "around" guns. But, MOST felons aren't on parole or probation.
I appreciate your effort at explaining the unexplainable. The OTHER guys change the subject. Would you try again, armed, so to speak, with the CORRECT law??
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:28 PM. |