|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 16:14:13 GMT -5
I am so glad that you decide to ignore my posts about the MYTH of the loophole. Forget about the gun show survey that is your only leg to stand on.....I just went to a couple of different websites and each one of them are ready to sell me any number of hand guns for under $700 dollars. They don't know who the hell I am, if I'm using a real name or my real address or having it sent to another address under a different name or if I've ever raped a woman at gun point or committed a crime against a child or what my story is........... So yes, there are loopholes and yes this bill was needed so that any psychopath with internet and enough money can just go on the internet and have a gun shipped to them. Then you didn't read Jack's post. He clearly says the gun is shipped to a dealer who then runs the background check.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie f'n Kelly on Apr 18, 2013 16:15:03 GMT -5
If you think they shouldn't make us get background checks before owning a gun, you're stupid, and probably the guy who ends up shooting a bunch of innocent little kids.
And if you say crap about "The government can't take our guns!" You're stupid. They're trying to make it so the general public can't have automatic weapons... Because there's no need for them, the only need for them is to kill and you don't need to do that. If you need it to kill animals, you shouldn't be hunting anyways because you're only doing it TO KILL, not for meat because the automatic weapon would DESTROY the animal. You don't need it for any target practice because, what are you practicing for... DESTROYING an animal for want to kill, or to kill people.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 16:16:16 GMT -5
Forget about the gun show survey that is your only leg to stand on.....I just went to a couple of different websites and each one of them are ready to sell me any number of hand guns for under $700 dollars. They don't know who the hell I am, if I'm using a real name or my real address or having it sent to another address under a different name or if I've ever raped a woman at gun point or committed a crime against a child or what my story is........... So yes, there are loopholes and yes this bill was needed so that any psychopath with internet and enough money can just go on the internet and have a gun shipped to them. Then you didn't read Jack's post. He clearly says the gun is shipped to a dealer who then runs the background check. That's great. Let's say I'm a huge rapist and child molester and just happen to use my buddy Stan's credit card and had it shipped to his address. The seller and dealer are basically under the assumption that STAN is making the purchase. What now.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 16:19:01 GMT -5
I propose an experiment. We ban guns in the USA, and see what happens. For every second that the USA doesn't become a world-recognised dictatorship/police state, I am right and Libertarians are wrong. As soon as that does happen, you guys were right and I was wrong. Deal? When I'm wrong, nothing happens. When you're wrong, I die. Seems like a fair trade-off. You should walk around with a two foot thick lead helmet just in case a meteor falls from space and hits you. You say the chance of that happening are practically zero, but if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, you die.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 16:27:48 GMT -5
Does it matter when it was written? It is the ideas in it that matter. Is freedom of speech outdated because it was written in a document over 200 years ago? What about the right against unreasonable search and seizure? Is that a terrible thing too? The right to a fair trial and the right to not incriminate yourself? I guess we should get rid of those because it's been over 100 years. Yeah, it does matter when it was written. If we listened to everything from hundreds of years ago, God knows where we'd be. And no, those things aren't outdated because they are still in the UDHR. Is right to a gun in there? I don't think so. They keep using the word "arbitrary." Because no country can just make up a reason or whatever to not make it arbitrary. Also they say everyone has a right to free education. Where the hell do they think the money for the "free" education is going to come from? It's certainly not free. What the hell is "freedom from want" supposed to be? Is that supposed to mean whenever somebody wants something they must get it since they are supposed to be free from want? "Everyone has the right to work." So does that mean if a person is unable to find work that they can sue whoever since they have the right to work? Then they go on about how everyone has the right to free stuff. Not exactly free. What they are saying is "Everyone has the right to have money stolen from them." Plus who the hell is the UN to tell us what to do?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 16:29:55 GMT -5
Then you didn't read Jack's post. He clearly says the gun is shipped to a dealer who then runs the background check. That's great. Let's say I'm a huge rapist and child molester and just happen to use my buddy Stan's credit card and had it shipped to his address. The seller and dealer are basically under the assumption that STAN is making the purchase. What now. You didn't read Jack's post. The gun is shipped to the dealer. Then YOU have to go to the dealer and fill out paperwork. Then they run the background check. It's not they send it to the dealer, look at the name and run it. You have to go there, in person, and fill out paperwork. Unless you are saying what if your friend buys a gun and gets the background check done and then gives the gun to you. Which is an entirely different matter.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 16:32:55 GMT -5
Yeah, it does matter when it was written. If we listened to everything from hundreds of years ago, God knows where we'd be. And no, those things aren't outdated because they are still in the UDHR. Is right to a gun in there? I don't think so. They keep using the word "arbitrary." Because no country can just make up a reason or whatever to not make it arbitrary. Also they say everyone has a right to free education. Where the hell do they think the money for the "free" education is going to come from? It's certainly not free. What the hell is "freedom from want" supposed to be? Is that supposed to mean whenever somebody wants something they must get it since they are supposed to be free from want? "Everyone has the right to work." So does that mean if a person is unable to find work that they can sue whoever since they have the right to work? Then they go on about how everyone has the right to free stuff. Not exactly free. What they are saying is "Everyone has the right to have money stolen from them." Plus who the hell is the UN to tell us what to do? "Everyone has the right to bare arms" So does that mean that anyone and everyone in the world should be given a gun at birth? Y'know, a gun....a highly deadly weapon with no other use other than to cause damage and/or kill things? As for that last sentence, I hope when you say "us" you don't mean America.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 16:35:22 GMT -5
You should walk around with a two foot thick lead helmet just in case a meteor falls from space and hits you. You say the chance of that happening are practically zero, but if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, you die. Excuse me for not wanting to "take a chance" that the US government has suddenly decided not to be a bunch of cowardly pieces of crap.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 16:38:28 GMT -5
They keep using the word "arbitrary." Because no country can just make up a reason or whatever to not make it arbitrary. Also they say everyone has a right to free education. Where the hell do they think the money for the "free" education is going to come from? It's certainly not free. What the hell is "freedom from want" supposed to be? Is that supposed to mean whenever somebody wants something they must get it since they are supposed to be free from want? "Everyone has the right to work." So does that mean if a person is unable to find work that they can sue whoever since they have the right to work? Then they go on about how everyone has the right to free stuff. Not exactly free. What they are saying is "Everyone has the right to have money stolen from them." Plus who the hell is the UN to tell us what to do? "Everyone has the right to bare arms" So does that mean that anyone and everyone in the world should be given a gun at birth? Y'know, a gun....a highly deadly weapon with no other use other than to cause damage and/or kill things? As for that last sentence, I hope when you say "us" you don't mean America. Everyone has the right to own a gun but that does not mean they get it for free. Why does the government get guns? Why would you give the government the ability to kill and destroy its own people? Don't act like it hasn't happened before. Why does the UN get to tell anybody in the world what to do?
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 18, 2013 16:42:05 GMT -5
Well, it's not anymore absurd than being afraid to be in the US for fear of being gunned down in cold blood wherever you go. That can happen almost anywhere with guns. Not just America. People hear about these mass shootings and tend to get the image that Columbine Trenchcoat clad men just roam the streets looking for someone to blast. THAT is absurd. Except being shot in cold blood in the US is practically an everyday occurrence while I'm not sure when the last time, if ever, someone has been killed in the UK just for being from America. You have completely irrational fears of guns and gun owners.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 16:42:53 GMT -5
You should walk around with a two foot thick lead helmet just in case a meteor falls from space and hits you. You say the chance of that happening are practically zero, but if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, you die. Excuse me for not wanting to "take a chance" that the US government has suddenly decided not to be a bunch of cowardly pieces of crap. Which has never ever happened historically and furthermore the proposed law doesn't stop you from buying a gun unless you can't pass the background check in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 16:45:19 GMT -5
Except being shot in cold blood in the US is practically an everyday occurrence while I'm not sure when the last time, if ever, someone has been killed in the UK just for being from America. You have completely irrational fears of guns and gun owners. And gun owners have completely irrational fears of the government taking their guns so they are defenseless if the government ever decides to turn into a dictatorship. Welcome to the world.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 16:47:52 GMT -5
"Everyone has the right to bare arms" So does that mean that anyone and everyone in the world should be given a gun at birth? Y'know, a gun....a highly deadly weapon with no other use other than to cause damage and/or kill things? As for that last sentence, I hope when you say "us" you don't mean America. Everyone has the right to own a gun but that does not mean they get it for free. Why does the government get guns? Why would you give the government the ability to kill and destroy its own people? Don't act like it hasn't happened before. Why does the UN get to tell anybody in the world what to do? The government are usually pretty responsible when it comes to handling weapons, that's why. They are also in charge of defending the country from other countries. Other countries are a much bigger threat than your own government. And you're right, it has happened before. In a completely different time, in a completely different place. It is not applicable for all countries. Why does anyone get to tell anybody what to do? Why do the police get to tell me what I can and can't do? When you have that thinking, everything unravels. It's a silly line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 16:49:55 GMT -5
Excuse me for not wanting to "take a chance" that the US government has suddenly decided not to be a bunch of cowardly pieces of crap. Which has never ever happened historically and furthermore the proposed law doesn't stop you from buying a gun unless you can't pass the background check in the first place. The government, state or federal, would never attack the people and kill them. It didn't happen at Ruby Ridge, it didn't happen at Waco and it certainly didn't happen at Kent State.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 16:56:03 GMT -5
Everyone has the right to own a gun but that does not mean they get it for free. Why does the government get guns? Why would you give the government the ability to kill and destroy its own people? Don't act like it hasn't happened before. Why does the UN get to tell anybody in the world what to do? The government are usually pretty responsible when it comes to handling weapons, that's why. They are also in charge of defending the country from other countries. Other countries are a much bigger threat than your own government. And you're right, it has happened before. In a completely different time, in a completely different place. It is not applicable for all countries. Why does anyone get to tell anybody what to do? Why do the police get to tell me what I can and can't do? When you have that thinking, everything unravels. It's a silly line of thinking. Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc. All responsible when it comes to handling weapons. I wouldn't call the Arab Spring a different time. Why does an international body get to tell me or anyone else what to do in their home? The police shouldn't be telling you what you can and can't do. The police should protect the people and arrest those who have committed a crime where there is a victim. They shouldn't be out looking for people who are speeding or don't have a state mandated license plate sticker. You don't want people to have guns but you want the police to have guns. So since we pay the salary of the police when the government comes knocking then the police should be there to defend us.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 16:57:50 GMT -5
Technically then, restricting ANYONE from buying guns is infringing on the Constitution. Right. Unless you are a threat to society (in which case you should be in prison...), then you should be able to own a gun. You in favour of giving guns to criminals? Violent criminals? No. I think they should be in jail until we have deemed them fit to re-enter society as normal people. People with mental illnesses? Sure. Saying someone has a "mental illness" and immediately proclaiming them as unable to operate a firearm is completely unfair. If someone is so insane that they can't be in society, then again, I would suggest them to be in a mental hospital. I would hope that whoever is taking care of a mentally ill person would have the decency to keep them away from things that could harm them or others. I bet that the majority of people here who own a firearm, also owned one when they were a child. Like anything, guns are a responsibility. The children need to be taught that. I would venture to say that literally MILLIONS of children own guns or have direct access to their parents' firearms...and how many mass shootings have we had by children in our history? I'll take those odds. Nothing you've said in this entire thread has even come within 1000 miles of anything the actual Bill was about. Because the bill itself is ing pointless. It really doesn't do anything, as Slappy has mentioned. I'll take it slow with you, because clearly you don't know what the hell actually goes on in the real world. I'll take it slowly with you, too, because clearly you don't know what the hell the Constitution and the Second Amendment in specific were written for. YOU - DO NOT - HAVE THE RIGHT - TO TELL ME - OR ANYONE ELSE - WHAT GUNS - WE CAN - OR CANNOT HAVE. PERIOD. YOU - DO NOT - HAVE THE RIGHT - TO TELL ME - THAT I HAVE TO SUBMIT TO A 'BACKGROUND CHECK' - TO OWN A GUN. PERIOD. Answer me this question: Do you think, as it stands right now with no proposed changes, the 3 day waiting period and background check that people have to pass when they buy a gun from a gun store is Constitutional? Of course it isn't. If you want to make a Constitutional Amendment to add that in, then go for it. But the Constitution is pretty in' clear about allowing free people to own guns. Telling them that they have to wait three days is infringing upon that right. So by your logic laws that ban fully automatic weapons or require you be 18 to own a handgun or ban grenade launchers are all unconstitutional because they infringe on the right to bear arms? That is insanity plain and simple. There are common sense things and there are stupid things. Opposing a background check is just beyond stupid. Especially if you're going to argue that background checks are already in place on every gun purchase anyway. Fine then, what does this law change? Nothing? Ok, then why oppose it? No, it's not "insanity." It's a fact. Like I've said, if you want to change the Constitution, there is a method for that. Constitutional Amendments have happened throughout history. Arbitrarily deciding that something is "reasonable" or "unreasonable" and creating laws around it which directly contradict the entire basis of this country's Constitutional Republic is insane. I oppose it for the same reason that I'd oppose the three day waiting period. Because it's unconstitutional in nature. Is right to a gun in there? I don't think so. So it doesn't provide for people to be able to defend themselves? Sounds like the rest of it is pretty ing irrelevant then, if it can't be defended. That's great. Let's say I'm a huge rapist and child molester and just happen to use my buddy Stan's credit card and had it shipped to his address. The seller and dealer are basically under the assumption that STAN is making the purchase. What now. Then your silly ass background check probably isn't going to work anyway. "Everyone has the right to bare arms" So does that mean that anyone and everyone in the world should be given a gun at birth? Y'know, a gun....a highly deadly weapon with no other use other than to cause damage and/or kill things? Ohhhhhhh you people and your belief that "the right to own" and "be given" are the same thing.... Sigh.... And gun owners have completely irrational fears of the government taking their guns so they are defenseless if the government ever decides to turn into a dictatorship. Welcome to the world. How the is it "irrational" when it has HAPPENED BEFORE?! And we're not talking like hundreds of years ago. We're talking about a time that PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE TODAY lived through... The government are usually pretty responsible when it comes to handling weapons, that's why. Of all the unbelievably ignorant things that have been said in this thread and others, this one takes the cake. Congratulations, sir, you are completely ignorant to reality.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:02:54 GMT -5
The government are usually pretty responsible when it comes to handling weapons, that's why. They are also in charge of defending the country from other countries. Other countries are a much bigger threat than your own government. And you're right, it has happened before. In a completely different time, in a completely different place. It is not applicable for all countries. Why does anyone get to tell anybody what to do? Why do the police get to tell me what I can and can't do? When you have that thinking, everything unravels. It's a silly line of thinking. Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc. All responsible when it comes to handling weapons. I wouldn't call the Arab Spring a different time. Why does an international body get to tell me or anyone else what to do in their home? The police shouldn't be telling you what you can and can't do. The police should protect the people and arrest those who have committed a crime where there is a victim. They shouldn't be out looking for people who are speeding or don't have a state mandated license plate sticker. You don't want people to have guns but you want the police to have guns. So since we pay the salary of the police when the government comes knocking then the police should be there to defend us. So if I was about to shoot someone, and a police officer was nearby, they shouldn't stop me because that would be telling me what to do? They should wait until I've actually committed the crime, then arrest me? No, I don't want the police to have guns. Policemen don't carry guns in the UK. I want there to be a supply of guns for an emergency break glass scenario, and that's about it. I don't know what having the police save you from the government has to do with guns.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 18, 2013 17:03:19 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you Kliq, but guns have been regulated in the States since the US has been around and there's nothing at all wrong with it legally. Like I said before, there are some irrational laws proposed based on pure fear. Those are dumb. Reasonable regulations aren't. Restricting guns by age makes sense. Requiring background checks just makes sense. The Constitution gives the right to Freedom of Speech. There are laws against libel and slander though. Those laws infringe on my right to Freedom of Speech, but it's not an unreasonable infringement. I can't just go around town telling people that you're a goat er and I can't protest outside your business telling everyone who comes in that you're a goat er (unless you really are a goat er of course). There is room for reasonable regulations without infringing.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Apr 18, 2013 17:06:51 GMT -5
When I purchase a firearm I have to fill out 3 pages of paperwork, then with that they do a background check. It's enough to show that I, or anyone else is a law abiding citizen. We do not need more. Every little step, whether it's a tiny little prying into someone's life or itsie-bitsie bite out of our constitutional rights, gives the government just that much more power over it's citizens, and the citizens less and less freedom. If we accept it, and inch turns into a foot, a foot into a yard, and so on. America would no longer be the land of the free and it's citizens become slaves with no rights, no freedoms, nothing. It can happen if allowed. Our Constitution was written to protect it's citizens from it's own government which is supposed to be controlled by us, the people in the first place. JS So all these people who are trying to limit the purchase of guns, the parents of victims of gun violence, are not trying to make the world a safer place, but are only working to create tyranny in America? If you couldn't buy guns you would be a slave? So lame.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Apr 18, 2013 17:08:09 GMT -5
You should walk around with a two foot thick lead helmet just in case a meteor falls from space and hits you. You say the chance of that happening are practically zero, but if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, you die. Excuse me for not wanting to "take a chance" that the US government has suddenly decided not to be a bunch of cowardly pieces of crap. I'm just waiting for the day when you start mailing anthrax to politicians.
|
|