VIRGINIA FAILS TO CLOSE GUN_SALES LOOPHOLE

farmerman wrote:

Why are you against the proposed "gun purchase limitation law" in Va??

I cant understand your logic at all.

Because GOVERNMENT HAS NO JURISDICTION to control guns,
in any way.

Government can only control guns by USURPATION of ultra vires activity,
with the same authority as a schoolyard bully.

DO U
UNDERSTAND MY LOGIC NOW ??

Quote:

Youve tried to susstain some kind of Midieval punishment system with, no doubt,
all sorts of cleffs and qualifiers, yet you dont support the limitation
to the numbers of guns purchasable at one time in a gun show?

Yes.
That is correct.
Government has no authority
to control the sales of guns any more than it has authority
to control the numbers of Bibles or of cars that can be sold at once.
I oppose government usurping power and thereby overthrowing the Constitution
that has created that government in the first place.
I hope that my logic has been clear.

Quote:

I suppose that, like cjhsa, you were also against the proposed law
to require reporting of lost or stolen guns in PA?

U suppose RIGHT.
No citizen has any more duty
to report a stolen gun than he has a duty
to report to the police when someone slugs him in the mouth,
or steals his book.
The victim has a RIGHT to call the police;
he has NO DUTY to call the police.

There is a big difference between a right and a duty.

David

0 Replies

Everything you do is obviously weighted against "govtguncontrolaphobia".
So, while I understand what youve been saying all along (PS, no need to go postal on me), I think that your logic is balmy.

IMHO, the libertarian view can often make good sense until the libertarian involved in the discussion begins to levitate off the planet.

Youre being irresponsible to the welfare of our citizens by holding an unshakeable view as you do. I think that your misplaced passion in defense of the 2nd Amendment, totally unaltered since the ratification of the Constitution, ignores the principles enumerated in the PREAMBLE to same.

WE apparently disagree mightily on this, and your incarceration,/banishment proposal is , entertaining,simply stated , and totally unworkable.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Everything you do is obviously weighted against "govtguncontrolaphobia".

Not everything.
If I go to a fine restaurant
and give a dainty waitress a $100 bill
for being the cutest chic around,
that is not :
obviously weighted against "govtguncontrolaphobia"

Quote:

So, while I understand what youve been saying all along
(PS, no need to go postal on me), I think that your logic is balmy.

I respect your right to think whatever u want.
U can believe that 3 + 4 = 13 if u want to.

Quote:

IMHO, the libertarian view can often make good sense until
the libertarian involved in the discussion begins to levitate off the planet.

Youre being irresponsible to the welfare of our citizens by holding an unshakeable view as you do.

1 ) I REJECT your implication that the Bill of Rights
is irresponsible to the welfare of our citizens,
( citing for evidentiary support to Vermont which has never had any gun laws )

2 ) If the Bill of Rights were irresponsible to the welfare of our citizens,
I wud say screw the welfare: I refuse to surrender, nor to curtail, my right to self defense,
or my familiy 's right to self defense.
I am NO liberal.
I am not politically correct.
I am UNSHAKABLY ORTHODOX on everyone 's constitutional rights
of self defense, including immediate access to emergency equipment.

If u don 't like it, u can lump it.
( I never knew exactly what that meant 50 or 60 years ago, but it sounds good. )

Quote:

I think that your misplaced passion in defense of the 2nd Amendment,
totally unaltered since the ratification of the Constitution,
ignores the principles enumerated in the PREAMBLE to same.

1 ) The Preamble is not law.

2 ) If there is an inconsistency between the Preamble
and one of the amendments ( like the 2nd one ),
then the dispute must be resolved in favor of the amendment,
because an amendment is a CHANGE.
It changes whatever went before it that in inconsistent with the amendment.
For instance,
suppose that in the original body of the Constitution,
slavery is permitted in several references in different places.
The 13th Amendment changes all of that, because
an amendment is a change of what was said earlier.

The Preamble does NOT change
the amendments that were enacted AFTER it. Got that, Farmer ??

Quote:

WE apparently disagree mightily on this, and your incarceration,/banishment proposal is , entertaining,
simply stated , and totally unworkable.

It is workable, it is easily workable and very simple,
but it will not happen.

0 Replies

I find your argument hpelessly naive.

PS, The preamble to the Constitution "Sets the standard for why we did it"

..."Do ordain , and establishthis,,,"
The interpretations made that have been decisis to this point, will ultimately have to be changed. The country cannot continue on its mad dash to self murder without societal breakdowns. Obviously weve given your"unlimited gun rights " mentality almost 2.5 centuries .
Lately Its cracking and your "Blaming the victims as the perps is a view from a "through the looking glass "world, Its sanity inside out.
As I said when I started this thread, Im a gun owner and I see no conflict with the Pa and Va proposals with gun ownership.
Your claim that "loophole" gun purchases and ultra large monthly quotas on gun purchases (like 50 guns a month being defended as "collector rights") is looney. Also, to only consider reporting of stolen guns as a "right" is further examples of looniness.
The NRA gun owners who are rabid(IMHO) dont need to look out after me because , truthfully, guys like you and cj scare the hell out of me, because you dont see the whole checker game of how far we take this "Arned citizenry" idea.
While we can agree that crime deterrence and home defense is practically accomplished by gun ownership and responsible care, I dont see how the insane "rights" help. You havent proposed anything that is close to a carefully thought out solution that is nothing more than a subscript to unlimited gun ownership. You havent addressed the recent US.mass killers whove been , on the most part, non recidivists.

NRA has also been in the fight against blasting agent taggants.I guess they see explosive ownership as associated with the uniform stance against sanity in the gun laws.

TEll me, if you travel to a gun event and carry your guns in your vehicle and the guns are stolen, do you report them as stolen-? How do you see YOUR responsibility toward your fellow citizens on this?
Or do you not care? IF you answer that everyone should be armed then I suggest that you take your PRACTICE RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS off your sig line cause youre kind of a hypocrite. Your line should be more like "If they aint armed, they aint my worry", when indeed it is all our worry and your simple minded solutions, are only satisfying to your mind alone.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I find your argument hpelessly naive.

That 's like saying that u don 't like my favorite color; so what ?

Quote:

PS, The preamble to the Constitution "Sets the standard for why we did it"

..."Do ordain , and establishthis,,,"

Amendments CHANGE whatever went before them
that is inconsistent with them; I thought I told u that already.

Quote:

The interpretations made that have been decisis to this point,
will ultimately have to be changed.

If so, that shud be the result of an honest, open political fight,
in compliance with the terms of Article 5 of the Constitution,
like the other amendments; NOT by sneaky, misinterpretations.

Quote:

The country cannot continue on its mad dash to self murder
without societal breakdowns.

I don t know what a societal breakdown IS,
but regardless, most folks will not surrender their rights
to defend their lives n other property, and their families from predatory violence.

As I said, everything is fine in Vermont,
which NEVER had any gun laws,
and in Alaska, which repealed all of its gun laws a few years ago.
Now, wearing a gun there is like wearing sox.

Quote:

Obviously weve given your"unlimited gun rights " mentality almost 2.5 centuries .

False.
It is not obvious in D.C., nor in Chicago.

Quote:

Lately Its cracking and your "Blaming the victims as the perps
is a view from a "through the looking glass "world, Its sanity inside out.

U spout nonsense.

Quote:

As I said when I started this thread, Im a gun owner
and I see no conflict with the Pa and Va proposals with gun ownership.

Your ignorant blindness is not my fault.
I 've tried to explain it to u.

Quote:

Your claim that "loophole" gun purchases and ultra large monthly quotas
on gun purchases (like 50 guns a month being defended as "collector rights") is looney.

I did not say anything about " collector rights ";
however, I will adopt it, and say it now.

What I DID say,
is that government was never granted jurisdiction
to control guns, and that it was explicitly DENIED that authority,
as a condition of its existence.
Did u get it that time ? I suspect that u have memory problems.

Quote:

Also, to only consider reporting of stolen guns as a "right"
is further examples of looniness.

Where did u take your psychiatric degree ?
Is that a medical term of art ?

Quote:

The NRA gun owners who are rabid(IMHO)

We do not have rabies.

Quote:

dont need to look out after me

I 'll stop looking.

Quote:

because , truthfully, guys like you and cj scare the hell out of me,

Lemme get this straight:
rabid gun owners DON 'T need to look out after u, BECAUSE cj and I scare you.

THEREFORE:

if cj and I did not scare u,
then gun owners with rabies wud need to look out after u ?

Did I get that right, Farmer ?

I 'm trying to follow your logic, here.

Quote:

because you dont see the whole checker game
of how far we take this "Arned citizenry" idea.
While we can agree that crime deterrence and home defense is
practically accomplished by gun ownership and responsible care,

I dont see how the insane "rights" help.

I don 't understand u; WHAT insane rights ??
U sound confused.

Quote:

You havent proposed anything that is close to a carefully thought out solution
that is nothing more than a subscript to unlimited gun ownership.

I did.
It is that every citizen shud arm himself ( or herself ) and practice for proficiency,
and that violent recidivists shud be isolated from the decent people
by very long or permanent incarceration, or by BANISHMENT.

Quote:

You havent addressed the recent US.mass killers whove been , on the most part, non recidivists.

If all of the victims had been armed,
thay cud have and wud have killed him real fast.
It wud be one bad guy against maybe 30 [?] victims shooting back.

Quote:

NRA has also been in the fight against blasting agent taggants.
I guess they see explosive ownership as associated with the uniform stance against sanity in the gun laws.

TEll me, if you travel to a gun event and carry your guns in your vehicle
and the guns are stolen, do you report them as stolen-?

How do you see YOUR responsibility toward your fellow citizens on this?

The same as if my pocket were picked,
or the same as if someone bounced me a check.
I have NO responsibility toward my fellow citizens on this.
It is none of their damned business.

Quote:

Or do you not care?

If any of my guns were stolen, I 'd care.
Each gun was selected with care
( except the .38 revolver I won in a poker game,
with some kids when I was 8, and the 1940 Luger P '08,
which was a lucky find ).

Quote:

IF you answer that everyone should be armed

I already did that ( see above ).

Quote:

then I suggest that you take your PRACTICE RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS
off your sig line cause youre kind of a hypocrite.

I KNEW I 'd get nailed on that someday;
someday is now.

U can be kind to a predator who is attacking u,
if u wanna.
I don 't recommend it.

U cud be kind to a mugger,
while he is beating the hell out of someone ti rob him;
maybe give the mugger a hand, if he is getting tired.
I don 't think that is a good idea, either.

I meant that u can pick someone out
( be he friend, foe, or stranger ) and
execute a random act of senseless kindness.
Like if u walk past a 12 year old boy playing a videogame
in a mall, u might drop a $50 on his game console, in front of him, as u go.

Quote:

Your line should be more like "If they aint armed,
they aint my worry", when indeed it is all our worry and your simple
minded solutions, are only satisfying to your mind alone.

So, I take it that u r speaking for everyone in America, except me ?
Have u asked permission to represent everyone 's views ?

Did u take an opinion survey that led u to this conclusion ?

Whether thay are armed or not,
thay are not my worry,
just as I am no one 's worry.

I just say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to disarm criminals
and government shud stop making it easier for criminals
by disarming their victims before the crime.
Government was denied authority to do that,
as a condition of its existence, when it was created.

0 Replies

ANOTHER way to express the same proposition is:

rabid gun owners DON 'T need to look out after u, BECAUSE cj and I scare u.

THEREFORE:

if cj and I did not scare u,
then gun owners wud NEED to look out after u IF thay have rabies

Maybe we can have our new philosophy student check this for accuracy.

0 Replies

DAvid, Im glad I gave you something to do yesterday. That was a very carefully crafted(albeit fevered) response. Laughing

I picture you (entirely from your modes of response) as some old geezer with a 4 day beard, no teeth , and tobacco juice dribbling off your chin. I see you standing along a street corner screaming at anyone who passes by. Then, can you blame me for not taking your arguments seriously? Youre an attorney I believe , and Im sure that youre a practitioner of the rules of dress when presenting in court. Im sure that (in your day job) you arent such a character as you convey herein with your giant loopy phrases and "off color" hailings.Youre a trip dude.

Your entire logic in this area has hinted on"we dont have the right to infringe on a Constitutional priviledge"--we disagree on this.We all know that we can add to and change theConstitution (and the Bill of rights) by referencewith new amendments.

Laws of the states need to conform to their constitutions and so-far, the state legislatures are not (to my knowledge) interpreters of Federal lAw. I thin k that your rabid NRA friends would be desirous of having a test of the 2nd amendment via some of these state laws.
Wed get a less fevered and straight interpretation without all the "Hewmongous" fonts and phonetically spelled screaming.
Id like to propose an alternative, I believe that you are full of **** in that the Pa and Va proposals would not violate anything in the 2nd amendment.
'Shall not be infringed" does not imply "shall be totally chaotic and unenforced"

I believe that we are long overdue for the dawning of an age of more responsible gun ownership, as soon as we can vote out all these clowns whove been on the gun manufacturers and the NRA teat as an inviolate legislative imperative.
The safety of our citizenry depends upon it.

I dont believe that "shall not be infringed" correlates at all with "shall have the right to infinite gun ownership or purchase; or the right to possess guns under certain circumstances of personal conduct or condition; or shall act irresponsibly in the concern of others rights v-a-v guns; or shall block any attempts at sane enforcement of existing gun laws while blocking attempts at passage of all new laws, despite their screaming need".

I know that I dont parrot the gun owners mantra of "OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS" but , as I see, thats the very condition that Charlie Heston should have been considering. With the protecting such chaotic gun laws we cant make any reasonable steps toward protecting our citizens.

.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

DAvid, Im glad I gave you something to do yesterday.
That was a very carefully crafted(albeit fevered) response.

Thank u ( he says as the sweat falls from fevered brow ).

Quote:

I picture you (entirely from your modes of response) as some old geezer with a 4 day beard,
no teeth , and tobacco juice dribbling off your chin.

3 days r all I can take; gets too scratchy; drives me nuts.

( unlike your avatar; will u grant me that ? )
I have abhored tobacco products since age 4.

Quote:

I see you standing along a street corner screaming at anyone who passes by.

No reason to scream n I don 't talk to strangers much.

Quote:

Then, can you blame me for not taking your arguments seriously?

Yes.
U endeavor ( with however unsuccessful a degree of futility )
to justify analysis of arguments on an ad hominem basis;
( i.e., judge the message by the messenger ).
No sale.

Quote:

Youre an attorney I believe ,
and Im sure that youre a practitioner of the rules of dress when presenting in court.

I retired from the practice of law in 1986.
I wear vested suits where ever I go.

Quote:

Im sure that (in your day job) you arent such a character as you convey
here in with your giant loopy phrases and "off color" hailings.

U r correct.
I have a different demeanor in such circumstances.
U 'd be surprized at what I 've been doing for the last 12 years.
Don 't ask.
I 'm retiring from it in a few days.

Quote:

Youre a trip dude.

U r not the first person to make that observation.
The first was my mother, who brought that up
a lot of times, over the years.

My dead friend, Neil, also used to point that out.

Quote:

Your entire logic in this area has hinted on"we dont have the right to infringe on a Constitutional priviledge"--we disagree on this.
We all know that we can add to and change the Constitution (and the Bill of rights) by reference with new amendments.

I already SAID that,
if it is done properly, as set forth in Aritcle 5,
not by sneaky, subversive judicial misinterpretations,
but an honest political fight in Congress and in the state legislatures.

Did u NOT read that, or did u forget that I wrote it ??

Quote:

Laws of the states need to conform to their constitutions and so-far,
the state legislatures are not (to my knowledge) interpreters of Federal lAw.

Thay NEED to do that all the time,
when deciding on their own statutes, for several reasons.

Quote:

I thin k that your rabid NRA friends
would be desirous of having a test of the 2nd amendment via some of these state laws.

None of my friends have rabies.
The USSC is about to rule on this issue.
Let 's see what happens.

Quote:

Wed get a less fevered and straight interpretation without all the
"Hewmongous" fonts and phonetically spelled screaming.

The judiciary does not foneticly scream when it is on the job.

Quote:

Id like to propose an alternative, I believe that you are full of **** in that the Pa and Va proposals would not violate anything in the 2nd amendment.
'Shall not be infringed" does not imply "shall be totally chaotic and unenforced"

Nothing about chaos.
Its that government was denied authority to control, or even to influence, possession of weapons,
one reason being that the citizens were supposed to be able
to overthrow the government ( as the Founders had just finished doing ),
and BOTH the Federalists and the Anti Federalists argued that
even BEFORE the 2nd Amendment existed.

Quote:

I believe that we are long overdue for the dawning of an age of more responsible gun ownership, as soon as we can vote out all these clowns whove been on the gun manufacturers and the NRA teat as an inviolate legislative imperative.

Believe that the moon is made of green chese,
if that 's what u wanna do.
I believe in your right to believe.

Quote:

The safety of our citizenry depends upon it.

Contrast the murder rates in DC
with those of Vermont ( which has never had any gun laws )
or with Alaska ( which repealed all of its gun laws a few years ago.
THEN tell me that.
U r not informed about what u r saying.

Quote:

I dont believe that "shall not be infringed" correlates at all with "shall have the right to infinite gun ownership or purchase; or the right to possess guns under certain circumstances of personal conduct or condition;

It means that government has no power to control in those areas,
because it has no jurisdiction,
like it cannot mandate how many children to have,
nor what favorite colors thay must admire.

That shud not be hard to understand.
The Founders had the same mind-set that I do.
Remember: there were no police then.
Everyone had to defend himself from man or beast.
It was against the law to go to Church without a gun.
Thay must have been losing too many Christians.

LEMME GET BACK TO U TOMMOROW, FARMER.

Quote:

or shall act irresponsibly in the concern of others rights v-a-v guns; or shall block any attempts at sane enforcement of existing gun laws while blocking attempts at passage of all new laws, despite their screaming need".

I know that I dont parrot the gun owners mantra of "OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS" but , as I see, thats the very condition that Charlie Heston should have been considering. With the protecting such chaotic gun laws we cant make any reasonable steps toward protecting our citizens.

.

0 Replies

Agreeing with Farmer.

0 Replies

Montana, Im just venting at the constant "govt has no right to infringe..." mantra. David and I see that point totally differently
Dadzu, please dont make out like Im the sole practitioner of ad hominem herein.
David' (and I paraphrase)--"Youre guilty of using ad hominem argument there you shith ead" Razz

Never mind, Ive had my say and youve had yours. Im gonig to continue to work toward saner gun ownership laws .
PS your compariosn of gun crime in Vt and ALsaka with DC is totally off the wall. You gun folks always make the correlation among the places where 1 person per square mile equates with 100000 persons per square mile. How about Amarillo or ODessa TExas, ALbuquerque or Newark NJ. They have no gun laws as strict as DC but As I understand AMarillo is always number 1 or at least in the top 5 in gun crimes.
AVailability of anything assists in its use(and abuse).
Anyway. DC abuts a state with one of the most lax gun laws around. In the fact that ALL borders are porous, we have guns pouring into DC from a gun show in ALexandria (give me the logic on that). May as well open a back door so that weapons of all kinds are daily tools. I think DC has led the nation in the occurence of violence with full auto weapons and all jurisdictions for full autos require a laughable permit application.

People from DC routinely drive out to WInchester to fire and blow brass at "full auto" ranges. I imagine that a few Cobrays make their way back to town. Your attempts at the comparison of Vt and ALaska with DC is an inaccurate implied correlation. Gun crimes in 1900 were, nationwide, about 1 per 100000 (this was a time when guns were freely available to just about anyone).
That was then, this is now. Today, the unsafest countries are routinely those in which guns are most freely available. In the case of DC or Detroit ,Making "islands" of gun control within oceans of flowing guns isnt a valid statistical inference. Yet you gun shills constantly use these lame arguments as "proof" that gun laws dont work, when its obvious that you dont have any control on the numbers and are just grabbing at flying feathers. DC's gun crimes are a consequence that occur despite gun control, not because of them. If Va would make the gun show checks mandatory, that would stem some of the flow of guns back to DC. If we were serious about reducing the availability of guns,even in DC, wed have fewer gun murders, however, as long as the NRA and gun shills obstruct such laws, little kids, cab drivers and liquor store employees wil continue to die in great numbers.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

Agreeing with Farmer.

On what basis ?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Montana, Im just venting at the constant "govt has no right to infringe..." mantra. David and I see that point totally differently
Dadzu, please dont make out like Im the sole practitioner of ad hominem herein.
David' (and I paraphrase)--"Youre guilty of using ad hominem argument there you shith ead"

Never mind, Ive had my say and youve had yours. Im gonig to continue to work toward saner gun ownership laws .
PS your compariosn of gun crime in Vt and ALsaka with DC is totally off the wall. You gun folks always make the correlation among the places where 1 person per square mile equates with 100000 persons per square mile. How about Amarillo or ODessa TExas, ALbuquerque or Newark NJ. They have no gun laws as strict as DC but As I understand AMarillo is always number 1 or at least in the top 5 in gun crimes.
AVailability of anything assists in its use(and abuse).
Anyway. DC abuts a state with one of the most lax gun laws around. In the fact that ALL borders are porous, we have guns pouring into DC from a gun show in ALexandria (give me the logic on that). May as well open a back door so that weapons of all kinds are daily tools. I think DC has led the nation in the occurence of violence with full auto weapons and all jurisdictions for full autos require a laughable permit application.

People from DC routinely drive out to WInchester to fire and blow brass at "full auto" ranges. I imagine that a few Cobrays make their way back to town. Your attempts at the comparison of Vt and ALaska with DC is an inaccurate implied correlation. Gun crimes in 1900 were, nationwide, about 1 per 100000 (this was a time when guns were freely available to just about anyone).
That was then, this is now. Today, the unsafest countries are routinely those in which guns are most freely available. In the case of DC or Detroit ,Making "islands" of gun control within oceans of flowing guns isnt a valid statistical inference. Yet you gun shills constantly use these lame arguments as "proof" that gun laws dont work, when its obvious that you dont have any control on the numbers and are just grabbing at flying feathers. DC's gun crimes are a consequence that occur despite gun control, not because of them. If Va would make the gun show checks mandatory, that would stem some of the flow of guns back to DC. If we were serious about reducing the availability of guns,even in DC, wed have fewer gun murders, however, as long as the NRA and gun shills obstruct such laws, little kids, cab drivers and liquor store employees wil continue to die in great numbers.

P.S.,
Farmer, I have PERFECT teeth.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Montana wrote:
Agreeing with Farmer.

On what basis ?

I'll respond to this when I have more time David. I'm a bit overwhelmed at this time, but reporting stolen guns is one of them. We already talked about that.

0 Replies

I was surprized
that the Farmer did not accept my challenge
for Farmer being anti-democratic.

I attribute this to his NOT reading the answers
that people render to the questions that he asks.

This is cut n pasted from the front of the thread:

"

Quote:

Part of a solution involves legislatures with the determination to buck
the hands that feed them and show more balls for the public good.

So NOW u have declared war on democracy
and u want governments to take over the country ??

According to u,
politicians shud rule by betrayal of their promises to voters,
and thay r rong if thay DON 'T ?? "

I suppose that this omission resulted
from my failure to have emboldened an reddened the text.

David

0 Replies

I suggest that you read OUT OF RANGE, a Constitutional scholars take on the fact that reasonable "gun control" does not conflict with the US Constitution.

Mark Tushnet (author) Is the Willie NElson Cromwell Professor of LAw at HArvard. HE seems to agree with me , but he doubts that the debate will be easily resolved. His overall conclusion is that gun control advocates have a more valid case .

Ill not continue any further discussion on this with you as Im not sure where its gonna take the debate. Youve not made anything compelling and your tendency to write in large crayon sized letters makes me wonder about how tightly youre packed.

0 Replies

Virginia: Another Anti-Gun Bill Defeated in Richmond!

Friday, January 25, 2008

By a vote of 77-18, House Bill 1277 was defeated in the House of Delegates
on Wednesday, January 23. Sponsored by Delegate Lionel Spruill (D-77),
HB1277 would have made it unlawful to possess a firearm on Capitol Square,
the area of the City of Richmond surrounded by Bank, Governor, Broad,
and Ninth Streets, as well as in the State Capitol, the General Assembly Building,
and the Patrick Henry Building.

0 Replies

The Farmer has proven his support of DISCRIMINATION
among the citizens, and his opposition
against equality before the law.

Then he has ignomineously FLED the field of philosophical analysis,
with his ideological tail between his legs.
A REAL man wud have openly ADMITTED defeat,
instead of slinking away, politically correctly.

0 Replies

WHo said Im going away, Im only going to try to avoid trying to talk sense and reasonable gun regulations with a rabid, weird old man who likes to write his posts like Ransom Notes.

0 Replies

For those who , unlike "screamin Dadzu" feel that gun laws can be passed that dont necessarilly threaten their 2nd A rights, heres some polling results that show how the feelings of the sampled population change over time. recent GUN POLLS
One issue is that 83% of those polled feel that keeping guns out the hands of the mentally ill. (David seems to try to slip this one by , by saying that there are already sufficient laws to assure that these people dont own guns)

Quote:

The Farmer has proven his support of DISCRIMINATION
among the citizens, and his opposition
against equality before the law.

. If thats how your fevered mind interprets my position, Ill live and sleep soundly . This thread is open to the rest of A2kers and they can decide for themselves the accuracy of your opinions.

I do know that Om sig seems to be in a position that doesn not allow even the consideration of gun laws like the one I brought up about the requirement of doing more comprehensive background checks of those who attempr to buy guns in Va Gund SHows.
He also (despite the nearly unanimous support of the PA STate and Municipal Police Association) doesnt want to require the reporting of lost or stolen guns and also to limit the number of gun purchases per month to some number that is more reasonable(and this would not affect gun dealers and sporting goods merchants)

As Tuchnet says
"perhaps a national GOP figure might take a stand against the NRA-not against gun rights, but against the trivial policies pushed by the NRA each year...as gun rights DEM Brian SChweitzer put it after Va TEch--it does no good for the GOP--or for the country--for their party to be seen as in the hip pocket of the nRA..."
The special intereset groups of gun manufacturers, try to exaggerate the differences among us. BUT as those poll results I posted above show, we are not as polarized as some would have us believe , and we agree on many of the really important issue.

Guys like cj and Om sig aside, I can envision a new group of politicians who will have the fortitude to buck the NRA and the "unlimited gun rights "zombies". Noone, except the anarchists who long for days of complete chaos, wants the unlimited ownership of guns and noone wishes for the continuation of acts of criminals and madmen who like to destroy innocent lives for the sense of power it provides them.
I woinder how David feels about the laws that govern possession and use of explosives?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

For those who , unlike "screamin Dadzu"[??]

I know what screamin means.

Quote:

feel that gun laws can be passed that dont necessarilly threaten their 2nd A rights,
heres some polling results that show how the feelings of the sampled population change over time. recent GUN POLLS

That 's like the Farmer saying
that if its popular to regulate Jews,
then that 's OK.

I wonder how the populace of the 3rd Reich felt about regulating Jews.

Quote:

One issue is that 83% of those polled feel that keeping guns out the hands of the mentally ill. (David seems to try to slip this one by ,
by saying that there are already sufficient laws to assure that these
people dont own guns)

THAT is the NRA position.
I reject the NRA's position on that.

I simply acknowledge the stupidity
of believing that laws will have any effect
in stopping ANYONE ( sane or not ) from either
arming himself by purchasing weapons on the black market,
or buy making them himself ( as the kids in my neighborhood did ).

Quote:

The Farmer has proven his support of DISCRIMINATION
among the citizens, and his opposition
against equality before the law.

.

Quote:

If thats how your fevered mind interprets my position, Ill live and sleep soundly .
This thread is open to the rest of A2kers and they can decide for themselves the accuracy of your opinions.

In other words,
the Farmer can only handle talking to people who AGREE with HIM.
If NOT, then he needs to weed them out. Right, Farmer ?

Quote:

I do know that Om sig seems to be in a position that doesn not allow even the consideration of gun laws like the one I brought up about the requirement of doing more comprehensive background checks of those who attempr to buy guns in Va Gund SHows.

The Bill of Rights simply DEPRIVES government
of ANY jurisdiction concerning citizens' possession of weapons,
so that those citizens can use those weapons to overthrow government,
as the Founders who WROTE the Bill of Rights had just finished DOING.

Quote:

He also (despite the nearly unanimous support of the PA STate and Municipal Police Association) doesnt want to require the reporting of lost or stolen guns and also to limit the number of gun purchases per month to some number that is more reasonable(and this would not affect gun dealers and sporting goods merchants)

That 's right.
I stand for FREEDOM.
The Farmer stands AGAINST FREEDOM,
like a few 20th Century dictators who I cud mention.

Quote:

As Tuchnet says
"perhaps a national GOP figure might take a stand against the NRA-not against gun rights, but against the trivial policies pushed by the NRA each year...as gun rights DEM Brian SChweitzer put it after Va TEch--it does no good for the GOP--or for the country--for their party to be seen as in the hip pocket of the nRA..."

Read that as being in the POCKET OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
or in the pocket of FREEDOM.
America is the Land of the Free and the HOme of the Brave.

Quote:

The special intereset groups of gun manufacturers, try to exaggerate the differences among us. BUT as those poll results I posted above show, we are not as polarized as some would have us believe , and we agree on many of the really important issue.

Freedom has the PROTECTION
of the Constitution.
What the Farmer wants is UNconstitutional.

Quote:

Guys like cj and Om sig aside, I can envision a new group of politicians who will have the fortitude to buck the NRA and the "unlimited gun rights "zombies".

The Constitution simply deprives government of jurisdiction
regarding gun possession.

Quote:

Noone, except the anarchists who long for days of complete chaos,

From the 1700s thru until the early 1900s,
we had gun freedom.
We did NOT have " chaos ";
that chaos exists only in the Farmer's mind.

0 Replies

VIRGINIA FAILS TO CLOSE GUN_SALES LOOPHOLE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know