How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

@MontereyJack,

I believe that china spy ballon landed on that imbecile's head Razz

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Try to keep those inflammatory childishly insultting defamarory rants under control. Your BP will go down and your heart will thank you.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You mean those posts where I tell the truth and criticize the left for their actual wrongdoing?

I will continue to tell the truth and criticize wrongdoing.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

I can, i do. And i have.

False. All you ever do is make empty claims without ever backing them up.

MontereyJack wrote:

You have a really shoddy memory.

My memory is perfect.

0 Replies

@Real Music,

These state level regulations are peace meal approaches that are ineffectual in regard to the gun problem throughout the nation. Assault weapons need to be banned on the national level along with other regulations such as gun registration and the limiting of the availability and ownership of guns.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

These state level regulations are peace meal approaches that are ineffectual in regard to the gun problem throughout the nation.

There is no gun problem.

InfraBlue wrote:

Assault weapons need to be banned on the national level

That would be unconstitutional. There is no justification for such a law, as no assault weapon that is legally owned by an American citizen has ever been used to commit a crime.

InfraBlue wrote:

along with other regulations such as gun registration

We've had gun registration for more than 50 years now. That's what Form 4473s are.

InfraBlue wrote:

and the limiting of the availability and ownership of guns.

That would be unconstitutional. People have the right to have them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
These state level regulations are peace meal approaches that are ineffectual in regard to the gun problem throughout the nation.

There is no gun problem.

Yes there is.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Assault weapons need to be banned on the national level

That would be unconstitutional.

Assault weapons banned on the national level would not be unconstitutional.

oralloy wrote:

There is no justification for such a law, as no assault weapon that is legally owned by an American citizen has ever been used to commit a crime.

Yes there is a justification for such a law, as assault weapons are regularly used to commit crimes in the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
along with other regulations such as gun registration

We've had gun registration for more than 50 years now. That's what Form 4473s are.

Form 4473 is inadequate for the necessities of a national gun ownership and possession registry.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
and the limiting of the availability and ownership of guns.

That would be unconstitutional. People have the right to have them.

Limiting the availability and ownership of guns, i.e. quantity of guns, would not be unconstitutional. Yes, people have the right to have guns.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes there is.

What is this supposed "gun problem"?

InfraBlue wrote:

Assault weapons banned on the national level would not be unconstitutional.
Yes there is a justification for such a law, as assault weapons are regularly used to commit crimes in the nation.

If any assault weapons are used to commit crimes in this nation, they are assault weapons that are already illegal and did not come from assault weapons that are legally owned by US civilians, so they cannot be a justification for outlawing the ones that are legally owned by US civilians.

Since there is no justification for outlawing the ones that are legally owned by US civilians, doing so is unconstitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

Form 4473 is inadequate for the necessities of a national gun ownership and possession registry.

It is perfectly adequate. Any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s.

InfraBlue wrote:

Limiting the availability and ownership of guns, i.e. quantity of guns, would not be unconstitutional. Yes, people have the right to have guns.

Preventing people from exercising their right to have guns is a violation of that right.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Yes there is.

What is this supposed "gun problem"?

The problem of an extremely high rate of gun crimes is not supposed.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Assault weapons banned on the national level would not be unconstitutional.
Yes there is a justification for such a law, as assault weapons are regularly used to commit crimes in the nation.

If any assault weapons are used to commit crimes in this nation, they are assault weapons that are already illegal and did not come from assault weapons that are legally owned by US civilians, so they cannot be a justification for outlawing the ones that are legally owned by US civilians.

Since there is no justification for outlawing the ones that are legally owned by US civilians, doing so is unconstitutional.

Your premise is incorrect. Most of the assault weapons used in crimes are legally owned.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Form 4473 is inadequate for the necessities of a national gun ownership and possession registry.

It is perfectly adequate. Any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s.

It is not adequate. The assertion that any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s is a fallacy.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Limiting the availability and ownership of guns, i.e. quantity of guns, would not be unconstitutional. Yes, people have the right to have guns.

Preventing people from exercising their right to have guns is a violation of that right.

Limiting the availability and ownership of guns, i.e. quantity of guns, would not prevent people from exercising their right to have guns, hence, it would not be a violation of that right.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The problem of an extremely high rate of gun crimes is not supposed.

I suppose whether "a given situation" represents a problem is a matter of opinion.

I don't see it as a problem if someone is murdered with a gun instead of with a knife or other weapon.

I see the murder itself as a problem (at least if it is actually murder, justified self defense is not murder), but the form of weapon that is used seems pretty inconsequential to me.

Likewise I don't think it matters whether someone is raped at gunpoint instead of raped at knifepoint. The rape itself is the problem there, not the form of weapon used.

The same as well if someone is robbed at gunpoint instead of robbed at knifepoint (or robbed with any other form of weapon).

InfraBlue wrote:

Your premise is incorrect. Most of the assault weapons used in crimes are legally owned.

What would be an example of a legally-owned assault weapon being used to commit a crime?

InfraBlue wrote:

It is not adequate. The assertion that any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s is a fallacy.

All you need to do is trace the chain of ownership from person to person until you get to the current owner. If a past owner sold their gun to someone else, they just pass the investigators on to the next owner.

InfraBlue wrote:

Limiting the availability and ownership of guns, i.e. quantity of guns, would not prevent people from exercising their right to have guns, hence, it would not be a violation of that right.

Wouldn't limiting the ownership of guns involve telling some people that they can not have guns?

How would that not violate their right to have guns?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Your BP will go down and your heart will thank you.

Actually I'm on so much blood thinner/blood pressure/anti-cholesterol medicine right now that I don't think it would even be possible to raise my blood pressure.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Those posts donot resemble actual truth n any way and what you call wrongdoing does not resemble actual truth of in any way either. Pure invention okn your and right wing looniies'part.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Wrong again. Everything that I have said is true.

And when progressives deliberately violate civil liberties, that is very much wrongdoing. Especially since progressives are not even violating civil liberties for any good reason. Progressives just think that it is fun to hurt people.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That post is malevolently stupid. Boil it down and whaf tou claim i s that gun murder is a civil libertye and that anyone who dos not like the gun nurders your actions exacerbate is unconstitutional. You are really into the socopathy today.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The problem of an extremely high rate of gun crimes is not supposed.

I suppose. . .

Opinions duly noted.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Your premise is incorrect. Most of the assault weapons used in crimes are legally owned.

What would be an example of a legally-owned assault weapon being used to commit a crime?

There are many; to name a few, the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, the El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting, the Dayton, Ohio shooting, etc.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
It is not adequate. The assertion that any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s is a fallacy.

All you need to do is trace the chain of ownership from person to person until you get to the current owner. If a past owner sold their gun to someone else, they just pass the investigators on to the next owner.

Exactly. Form 4473 is inadequate, and the assertion that any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s is a fallacy because it relies on the assumption that information will be voluntarily passed to investigators.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Limiting the availability and ownership of guns, i.e. quantity of guns, would not prevent people from exercising their right to have guns, hence, it would not be a violation of that right.

Wouldn't limiting the ownership of guns involve telling some people that they can not have guns?

How would that not violate their right to have guns?

No, it wouldn't.

People would still have the right to have guns. This right would be much better regulated than it is now.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

That post is malevolently stupid.

I do not share the opinion that civil liberties are stupid.

MontereyJack wrote:

Boil it down and what you claim is that gun murder is a civil liberty

No. Having a pistol grip on a semi-auto long gun is a civil liberty.

Having pistol grips on semi-auto long guns does not cause a single murder.

MontereyJack wrote:

and that anyone who dos not like the gun murders your actions exacerbate is unconstitutional.

Pistol grip bans have nothing to do with reducing murders, and preventing progressives from outlawing pistol grips does not exacerbate murders.

MontereyJack wrote:

You are really into the sociopathy today.

The only sociopathy here is progressives violating people's civil liberties for their own entertainment.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

There are many; to name a few, the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, the El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting, the Dayton, Ohio shooting, etc.

Those crimes did not involve assault weapons. The guns involved were semi-auto-only.

InfraBlue wrote:

Exactly. Form 4473 is inadequate, and the assertion that any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s is a fallacy because it relies on the assumption that information will be voluntarily passed to investigators.

If they do not tell the investigators who they sold the gun to then they become a leading suspect in whatever crimes the gun was involved in.

Tracing the chain of ownership can be made more reliable by passing comprehensive background check laws that require a background check and new Form 4473 filing for every sale of a used gun.

InfraBlue wrote:

No, it wouldn't.

If limiting the ownership of guns would not involve telling some people that they cannot have guns, then I am unclear what you mean by limiting the ownership of guns.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
There are many; to name a few, the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, the El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting, the Dayton, Ohio shooting, etc.

Those crimes did not involve assault weapons. The guns involved were semi-auto-only.

Yes they did. Semi-auto is only one feature of those assault weapons.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Exactly. Form 4473 is inadequate, and the assertion that any gun that is used in a crime can be traced to its owner using Form 4473s is a fallacy because it relies on the assumption that information will be voluntarily passed to investigators.

If they do not tell the investigators who they sold the gun to then they become a leading suspect in whatever crimes the gun was involved in.

Correct.

oralloy wrote:

Tracing the chain of ownership can be made more reliable by passing comprehensive background check laws that require a background check and new Form 4473 filing for every sale of a used gun.

Yes sir!

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No, it wouldn't.

If limiting the ownership of guns would not involve telling some people that they cannot have guns, then I am unclear what you mean by limiting the ownership of guns.

By limiting the ownership of guns I mean limiting the number of guns one can posses, e.g. one handgun, one long gun, and one shotgun.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes they did. Semi-auto is only one feature of those assault weapons.

Being semi-auto-only means that they are not assault weapons.

Assault weapons are capable of full-auto.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes sir!

As soon as the left stops trying to ban guns, all the current unconstitutional gun laws are repealed, and the left pays huge reparations for those past laws, I'll be happy to support a law requiring gun licenses (that require a periodic background check to renew) for all gun sales, new or used.

In fact, I would support all of the proposals described here:
https://www.97percent.us/roadmap

I am wary of red flag laws being abused, but would acquiesce so long as they had all the due process protections that are described on that page.

InfraBlue wrote:

By limiting the ownership of guns I mean limiting the number of guns one can posses, e.g. one handgun, one long gun, and one shotgun.

It is hard to see the Constitutional justification for such restrictions.

Such a law is sure to be blocked by the NRA as well, as hunters hunt a wide variety of game animals that require different kinds of rifles. Some people collect guns as a hobby also.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

five years of your attmepts to say it's all aut pistol grips is in fact remarkably stupid, no matter what you think.

1 Reply

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know