That’s a distinction without difference. Also, missing my point. The locations where mass shootings have taken place prohibit citizens from conceal carrying; therefor, if a situation was to rise and a trained bystander present, zhe would be unarmed because prohibited.
1 Like
Other than schools I don’t know where they have happened that prohibited concealed weapons.
Already have these laws man.
You can’t even hand a felon a firearm without becoming one yourself. Not even for “range time”.
You’re not exempt from the law because you do a private sale without a BGC.
“Big majorities” have zero bearing on what is or isn’t a right. While “big majorities” may very well get laws passed that trample on rights, that doesn’t make the law just.
And again, if the gun grabbers actually compromised, you’d all have UBGC in about 3 or 4 weeks. BUt as it is, we’ll fight it, because we would get nothing in return…
Presumably no, they wouldn’t, but I’m not going to bet on an SCOTUS outcome right now.
Most single issue voters on the 2nd issue already vote republican. I think you’re over estimating how much “political goodwill” caving into the gun grabbers on any issue wins you.
Yes. Oh but right, it’s just useless farmland and those stupid rubes in the sticks speaking retardspeak.
It’s easier in MA to buy a firearm out of the back of a trunk than it is from a dealer or in a face to face.
I had my LTC (before I moved to America) and honestly could have made two phone calls and gotten my hands on just about anything I wanted in 24-48 hours. But I’m not a bad person, so I jumped through the hoops and it took upwards of a god damn year to get a firearm.
It’s not smarter, it’s availability. Firearms are available on the black market.
Places that serve alcohol and churches typically are prohibited, and any private business can put up signage that may or may not be binding in your state.
His statement kind of proves your point if you let it.
The Republicans tried this last year. The Democrats filibustered it.
Pretty obvious the Democrats are not really interested in stopping violence. What they want is confiscating weapons – from guys like the NRA instructor who shot the Texas church shooter twice and ran him off (and prevented him from going to his apparent next location, given the amount of magazines still in the car).
2 Likes
Cruz is being disingenuous and playing politics.
He said, “There were a couple elements of that legislation that were critical: One, it mandated that federal agencies, including the Air Force, report to the [NICS] because that was a problem back then. But, two, and this is an even more critical piece, if it had been reported to the background database, when he went into Academy to buy this — these weapons, he lied on the forms. That is a felony to lie on those forms. The Obama administration didn’t prosecute those cases. In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They prosecuted only 44 of them.”
The Air Force was supposed to report the conviction but didn’t. So his bill contained something that is already in place. He says that his bill would make lying on those forms a felony, which it already is apparently, according to what he said. So what new ideas did he come up with? This was just a shot at Obama. He ignores that it happened under GWB as well. Also, that figure that Cruz mentioned is false. The number he refers to is number of rejections but that doesn’t mean a crime was committed. He also left out that it isn’t just the federal government who has the authority to pursue criminal charges.
1 Like
My thought was how many votes are you going to lose purely by enacting UBC. My guess is not many. Would be the crowd that votes Dem except they don’t because of their 2a views. Then again, I could be wrong.
You still seem really bothered by the verbiage I used to describe people so unintelligent they couldn’t work google for 90 seconds. I’ll try to avoid engaging with you in the future. We’ll both probably be better off for it.
Yep, they do, because there exists no unqualified right.
But placing ceratin limits on rights isn’t trampling on them. Again, no right is unqualified. Not speech, not worship, not ownership of firearms.
You mean you’d have nothing in return except for the moral satisfaction that you’re helping keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of maniacs who would slaughter children with them, while at the same time keeping all your firearms? You wouldn’t feel good about helping prevent that situation, even if only marginally?
You weren’t born here? I didn’t know that.
If I’m following/guessing correctly, he’s from Massachusetts and has moved to New Hampshire.
1 Like
Maybe it’s because I’m in that bubble, but a lot. The criticism of the NRA from gun owners, members and former members (is significantly more rational) but a lot more harsh than the looneys on the left with all their emotive tweets about “bathing in blood” and “they are a terrorist organization”.
Scott Brown stabbed gun owners in the back, lost in NH. Part of that was being a carpet bagger and right leaning people in NH aren’t as quick to vote party line as others. (As in they will stay home and let shit burgers get elected rather than play the “lessor of two evils” game, generally speaking. Some obviously still play it.) But the point is, I can copy paste no less than a thousand posts on a single internet forum of people saying it they left Senate blank because fuck Scott Brown.
And it isn’t about “UBC” to a lot of us. I wouldn’t give a flying fuck if they passed to be honest. I don’t do private transfers, I take everything to an FFL, and if the buyer/seller doesn’t like that, oh well. I’m not having my life destroyed because of a technicality…
It’s about, simply put “we’ve given up enough already.” And the fudds are dying off, so you have those of us who are young blockheads that are done moving on this honestly. We’ve done nothing wrong, why should our way of existence have to change?
Nah, I love the irony of it.
Don’t be a coward. I mean ED already ran away from a bunch of conversations and just likes anyone who disagrees with me. Don’t be like that.
Take ownership of what you said. If you’re okay with, why would me bringing it up bother you enough to not have a conversation?
Gotcha.
As if to prove my point. Engaging with you provides no positive value to my life. As such, I lose nothing by not engaging with you.
Edit: I would suspect ED reached the same conclusion as me, albeit faster than me.
I have no problem completely owning my belief that “all birthers = retardspeak.” You seem to keep wanting to bring it up, and I’m bored with it. There’s a multitude of intelligent posters here for me to talk to. You’re unnecessary.
Have a good day!
1 Like
Article conveniently forgot to mention that the GOP filibustered a bipartisan bill:
And that the Grassley-Cruz bill was a last-minute substitute:
Pretty obvious the GOP is not interested in stopping gun violence. What they want are wedge issues that will dupe working-class people into voting against their own interests.
1 Like
I’m not someone who believes rights are granted by the state, so this line of conversation is likely to go nowhere, because that seems to be what you’re implying.
We’d be like a Jew and Muslim trying to reconcile our religious differences here.
The issue here is though, in the specific case we’re talking about, you’re looking to get a certain policy passed that is going to be seen in conjunction with other policies, and it won’t be well received.
Gun owners in certain parts of the country have been successful in eating enough of the elephant to give people a sense of security re: ownership, limits on said ownership etc. However there are still places were legislators are actively trying to make it de facto impossible via ass pain, to own or operate a firearm.
So we’d have to define our terms here before this back and forth just ends up at the same place we left it.
Are you talking about political reality of UBGC’s specifically, or is this a philosophical discussion of their legality? Because if the former, you have to take the viewpoint of those opposed into account when discussing the political reality. And the political reality is any legislation that could possibly be seen as “anti gun rights”, which UBGCs will certainly be seen as (whether or not you think those people are wrong is irrelevant here) is going to face a significant uphill battle at least federally, and outside a couple states.
But again, write a bill that puts UBGCs in, takes suppressors off NFA and reals the Hughes Amendment and I bet a mortgage payment it passes by 11/15.
Nice appeal to emotion man. Just to let you know, we get charged with this all the time. “It’s for the kids”. We’re immune to it.
It’s a kin to the left calling everyone they dont’ like racists. It doesn’t work anymore, so they switched to Nazi and white supremacist (I’ve even heard “black white supremacist” lmao for the likes of Ben Carson.)
But to answer your question: There isn’t many of the high profile “mass killings” that would have been prevented by UBGC’s, and seeing as things like Dodd-Frank just made “to big to fail” even bigger, I’m not just going to jump on board with a policy change for emotional reasons.
That said, I’ve never bought or sold a firearm without it either going through an FFL, or (once) it having a BGC on it.
My hands aren’t dirty here. I’ve killed no one, and know I’ve not handed a firearm to anyone that can’t have one. These emotional appeals won’t guilt me into supporting legislation.
Yeah, it’s pretty nice actually.
Maybe it’s because you spend an awful lot fo time talking about me, and not any of the ideas I post?
Just a hunch.
Nah, I somehow doubt that lol
Yeah, because it’s incredibly hilarious that you have no problem using ignorant language to ridicule people you think are ignorant.
It’s pure irony.
I and bring it up mostly because mister SJW himself ED won’t call you out for using that word in a derogatory sense.
So you’re running away without addressing any points too?
lmao, have fun incessantly “liking” any post that disagrees with me.
1 Like
lmao
This is such an elementary opinion, and lacks any sort of critical thought what-so-ever.
No wonder you run away from so many conversations.
“Running away” implies (to me) that I have a single ounce of obligation to respond to your thoughts. While you seem to be an intelligent enough poster, you also come off as a pretty big douchebag. The internet is simply too large to think that douchebags have to be entertained instead of ignored. Feel free to think whatever you want of me as well, I promise not to lose sleep over it.
Last one I swear! Have a good one.
1 Like
To clarify this because it might seem like I’m contradicting myself.
MA has UBGC’s and I have made one face-to-face sale in the state of MA while a resident that didn’t go through an FFL. I knew the kid pretty well, and via it being MA, knew he was subject to a BGC when I sold it. Every other purchase and sale went through an FFL.
Now that I’m a NH resident, and don’t need to go through that portal, any purchases or sales will all be via FFL. Again, to cover my ass mostly.
Sure. I can see that.
Not sure why we’re talking about me though, and not the original point of this back and forth.
Eh, never really thought about it, but you seem like a pretty level headed normal guy that likes to get into the thick of it over politics…
Don’t ever feel the need to hold yourself to this.
I’m not sure why you find me so threatening, but it’s clear I am all up inside your head.
I suspect other people find it as obvious and amusing as I do.
No doubt you’ll respond to this with yet more juvenilia, which will only provide further evidence of the deep-seated insecurity you feel where I’m concerned. You’re unable to let anything I say go because you’re worried that if you do, it will amount to evidence confirming your insecurities. The irony being, the exact opposite is true.
No offense, but irrelevant to the issue. You still have to live in the real world, one that involves trade-offs that can’t be imagined away.
Non-sequitur. It isn’t an appeal to emotion. It’s an appeal to a legitimate policy end. You said you’d get nothing for it, but you would, assuming you think helping prevent maniacs from gettinf their hands on weapons is a good public outcome and good public policy (hint: it is, there are already laws on the books designed to do so, as you know).
Nah, this is a dodge. It isn’t name calling ad hominem - it’s addressing a legitimate public safety issue that just reared its ugly head again in Texas. Pretending the issue doesn’t actually exist doesn’t make it go away.
That isn’t the issue - the point is to create a tool that helps prevent a future one. Maybe the next one is prevented by UBC. The cost to purchase this (hopeful) insurance against it happening so is nil - no one gets their guns taken away. The only cost is it hurts the feelings of the fantasyland crowd that doesn’t understand how the real world operates.
It isn’t guilt, it’s reason - but you’ve cocooned yourself off from addressing the issue with reason. Far from it, and the great irony is you and your ideological brethren are motivated almost entirely by emotion - fetishism above all, a feeling of personal attachment that transcends any other rational concern.
Sorry, man, but it’s true. There is no “option out” of the real world, much as you would prefer there to be.
1 Like
Don’t flatter yourself.
Trolling you to engage is fun.
Yes, the three of you that circle jerk like all these posts talking about me likely do.
Suppose that’s better than arrogance and projection, but that’s just me.
Meaningless word salad at worst, projection at best.
But truthfully, I find you interesting more than anything. Very thin skinned to any sort of criticism but interesting none the less. While we disagree on a lot of minutia, we agree on enough “big picture” it’s worth reading your perspective.
But whaeve’s man. I’m tired talking about me, you and pfury seem to take this whole internet thing way to serious…