Now, why would Obamao and co open our borders to illegals/terrorists/cartels ?

[calfoxwc]

....and try to wreck our economy with outrageous printing of money.....

and put up a socialist and a corrupt dirtbag to run for the democratic nomination?

 

even gave the cartels a LOT of WEAPONS. Does this make sense to anyone?

 

Many thousands of UNVETTED middle eastern ..."immigrants" ?

 

Still haven't seen any lib explain why it's okay to do NO background check

on all these illegals and immigrants, like Syria, etc etc etc....

 

but they want expanded background checks on all gun owners and purchasers.

 

Why would a communist raised socialist-oriented "president" ...

encourage all hell to break loose?

 

Beats me.

 

Any lib want to try?

 

Oh, btw, here's an interesting article......

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/south-america/item/11632-with-un-support-socialist-chavez-disarms-civilians-in-venezuela

[Tour2ma]

Not "a lib", but sure... I'll take a shot... (in order)

• he isn't (and it's not)...
• he's not...
• See below...
• not a question...
• also not a question... also not a true statement...
• not a question, but a good idea...
• he isn't and he's not...

Seems like a level of detail commensurate with that of your questions/charges/statements... except for "the guns"...

 

I assume you are referring to "Fast and Furious". I also assume you believe Obama was in on the detailed development of the plot and in fact insured it would fail and put guns in the hands of criminals... you know, like the Gun-Show loophole does.

 

Fast and Furious was a bad idea repeated. It was an October, 2009 scale up of an earlier effort with the same goal, expose the trafficking of guns from the U.S into Mexico. The earlier effort was named "Wide Receiver". Wide Receiver was conducted in 2006 and 2007.

 

I'm not aware of any evidence/testimony showing that Obama knew of Fast and Furious' existence prior to Winter, 2010 and the program was halted within months. Over 65,000 pages of related documents were released over a year ago and I know of nothing that's come of them.

[Clevfan4life]

Stop it right now Tour with your factual statements. Who do you think you are anyway? Cal worked really hard on that troll and now he can't copy and paste it back to HQ at bullshit mountain cause you went ahead and ruined it!!

[Browns149]

SO you have something to complain about?

[calfoxwc]

baloney. Obamao put holder in place as AG.

 

He never fired him.

 

btw, there is no "gun show loophole", unless you want to ban

private citizens who are not in the regular business of selling

guns for profit... from shows.

 

On principle, private gun owners are not required to register their guns, because

that lends itself nearly every time - to confiscation.

 

And, the times registration has been passed, it has been used as a liberal weapon of choice.

 

They published the names of registrants, to socially ostracize them, and make them targets.

Even the names of police officers, etc.

 

Private gun owners must be allowed to be free of infringement. It's in our Constitution.

Private gun owners can sell their guns, hand their guns down to successive generations, etc.

Being a straw purchaser, of course, is seriously and flagrantly illegal.

 

Here's a few facts for ya'll.

 

1. Pres Bush was NEVER against our 2nd Amendment.

 

2. ObaMao always HAS BEEN against our 2nd Amendment.

 

3. Pres Bush NEVER blamed American guns for mexican violence.

 

4. Obamao most certainly HAS. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319205/In-gun-control-argument-Obama-blames-Americans-Mexican-deaths-Most-guns-used-commit-violence-Mexico-come-United-States.html

 

5. It's one thing to have a year program under Bush. But under Obamao, it's obvious that fast and furious looks like

was manufactured to fit Obamao's anti-2nd Amendment bigotry.

 

6. "shall not be infringed" damn good and well MEANS what it says.

 

7. Any attempt by the leftist corrupt sombeech gov to register all guns, control all guns, find out

where they all are, etc etc etc etc etc etc....is an infingement. See #6.

 

Meanwhile, only a fool would not admit that Obamao's fast and furious fits his anti-2nd Amendment

blame for mexican gun violence on all decent, law abiding Americans.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

[Tour2ma]

cal,

Do you want to discuss this or simply regurgitate your dogma? "Is too.../Is not..." is not of any interest to me. I could be watching game tape...

 

That said there was substance to part of your reply... I'll respond to that.

 

OK, no "loophole", but how would requiring a background check to be run for all gun transactions violate anyone's rights? Certainly in the age of a computer in every phone the burden of requiring a check is not an undue burden.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Setting aside the militia bit, which is debatable...

• Where in the text is the right to sell arms protected?
• Does the 2nd not leave room to require the licensing of anyone seeking to sell or transfer a gun?
• How does the simple knowledge of the whereabouts of a firearm constitute "infringement"?
• If this knowledge is a concern, then why would any gun owner "open carry"?
• Why would any owner apply and qualify for a concealed carry permit?
• Why would any owner post about a gun they own or give any indication of ownership?

Any hint of inconsistency getting through to you?

 

How about this...

• Conservatives have been very adamant about not needing regulations to reduce the frequency of mass shootings. In the alternative they have recommended a registration of the mentally ill, so that they may be known to those performing the background checks for dealers and the sale prevented.
• Setting aside the privacy issues such a registry raises for the moment. How would a private seller know to not sell a firearm to a registered ill person?

[gftChris]

On principle, private gun owners are not required to register their guns, because

that lends itself nearly every time - to confiscation.

 

I can't tell you how annoying it is when you register something and the government just comes along and takes it. I keep buying cars, but every time, a week later, someone from the government turns up and says "sorry sir, that belongs to us now!" when I complain they just tell me I shouldn't have registered it, but that's illegal!

 

It's even worse with houses. One minute you're in the kitchen with a pot of java on the go, the next the foundations are trembling as a team of chinook helicopters are tearing your house from the very land it's on. Great, now I'm going to be late for work.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I can't tell you how annoying it is when you register something and the government just comes along and takes it. I keep buying cars, but every time, a week later, someone from the government turns up and says "sorry sir, that belongs to us now!" when I complain they just tell me I shouldn't have registered it, but that's illegal!

 

It's even worse with houses. One minute you're in the kitchen with a pot of java on the go, the next the foundations are trembling as a team of chinook helicopters are tearing your house from the very land it's on. Great, now I'm going to be late for work.

Sarcasm aside, the spirit of the amendment implies that a militia is necessary for a free state. Why then if the militia is needed to fight off a potentially tyrannical government (that was the situation at the time of it being written; fresh off of the American Revolution) would it be deemed o.k. that you have to get the blessing of the potentially tyrannical government to defend yourself against it? You would think that registering your firearms with the potential bad guy would be a strategic error.

 

Not saying that there should be no regulation whatsoever but just that I don't think the intent of the amendment was to have government involved in every step of the way.

[gftChris]

Sarcasm aside, the spirit of the amendment implies that a militia is necessary for a free state. Why then if the militia is needed to fight off a potentially tyrannical government (that was the situation at the time of it being written; fresh off of the American Revolution) would it be deemed o.k. that you have to get the blessing of the potentially tyrannical government to defend yourself against it? You would think that registering your firearms with the potential bad guy would be a strategic error.

 

Not saying that there should be no regulation whatsoever but just that I don't think the intent of the amendment was to have government involved in every step of the way.

I can certainly imagine the intention behind it being to fight off a tyrannical government, like the British at the time, and so you wouldn't want that tyrannical government to stop access.

 

BUT, things have changed a bit since then. The weapons at the disposal of the US army would render handguns and the like meaningless in any confrontation - be it airstrikes on bigger targets, or using drones with tear gas as crowd control, etc. So there's basically no chance of a militia of mostly-untrained mostly-fatasses putting up anything resembling sustained resistance.

 

You also have to consider of course the wider world - any such tyranny from the US government would be met with glee by the russians and chinese who would leap at the chance to invade and carve up the US, as a 'peace keeping force'. And the rest of the UN would be on board with 'removing' whichever tyrant decided to attempt it.

 

Then there's the 'how' - how would any one person get to the position where they can exert such influence over a generally not corrupt (at troop level) military? There'd be plenty of desertion before any actual fighting began.

 

I can see your point, but things have seriously changed since the times of the constitution, especially with regards to warfare. Even since the Vietnam war, where an armed militia effectively held up the US army, things have changed massively.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I can certainly imagine the intention behind it being to fight off a tyrannical government, like the British at the time, and so you wouldn't want that tyrannical government to stop access.

 

BUT, things have changed a bit since then. The weapons at the disposal of the US army would render handguns and the like meaningless in any confrontation - be it airstrikes on bigger targets, or using drones with tear gas as crowd control, etc. So there's basically no chance of a militia of mostly-untrained mostly-fatasses putting up anything resembling sustained resistance.

 

You also have to consider of course the wider world - any such tyranny from the US government would be met with glee by the russians and chinese who would leap at the chance to invade and carve up the US, as a 'peace keeping force'. And the rest of the UN would be on board with 'removing' whichever tyrant decided to attempt it.

 

Then there's the 'how' - how would any one person get to the position where they can exert such influence over a generally not corrupt (at troop level) military? There'd be plenty of desertion before any actual fighting began.

 

I can see your point, but things have seriously changed since the times of the constitution, especially with regards to warfare. Even since the Vietnam war, where an armed militia effectively held up the US army, things have changed massively.

Oh I agree there should be some regulation but to say that having a heavily armed populace, even if just small arms, isn't a deterrent to a tyrannical government is a bit misguided. Unfortunately, the U.S. has had to deal with situations like this since Vietnam and it has ended with us getting fed up and leaving.

[gftChris]

Oh I agree there should be some regulation but to say that having a heavily armed populace, even if just small arms, isn't a deterrent to a tyrannical government is a bit misguided. Unfortunately, the U.S. has had to deal with situations like this since Vietnam and it has ended with us getting fed up and leaving.

I'd say it's an 'obstacle' rather than a deterrent.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I'd say it's an 'obstacle' rather than a deterrent.

Well, if it has been a historical 'obstacle' that has ran off much more advanced militaries (U.S., Soviet Union, etc.) I imagine it could be seen as a deterrent by now. Unless of course, no one cracks open a history book.

[Clevfan4life]

cal,

Do you want to discuss this or simply regurgitate your dogma? "Is too.../Is not..." is not of any interest to me. I could be watching game tape...

 

 

 

May I suggest a certain defensive player from OSU who's name sounds like a pair of high end headphones?

[gftChris]

 

May I suggest a certain defensive player from OSU who's name sounds like a pair of high end headphones?

Marty Brennheiser?

DaQwan Ran & Olufson?

Emmanuel CleatsByDre?

[calfoxwc]

OK, no "loophole", but how would requiring a background check to be run for all gun transactions violate anyone's rights? Certainly in the age of a computer in every phone the burden of requiring a check is not an undue burden.

 

• Does the 2nd not leave room to require the licensing of anyone seeking to sell or transfer a gun?
• How does the simple knowledge of the whereabouts of a firearm constitute "infringement"?

Tour

**************************************************************

Because of "shall not be infringed". Go look up the words in a dictionary. The private, anonymous ownership of guns

by American citizens is required. The gov has to know where every single gun owned is, how many, the serial

#'s, addresses, and every single transaction that ever takes place, etc etc, to have any chance of doing background

checks on all I mentioned. And, once the gov knows where they are, bingo. The gov can take them, albeit bit by bit

maybe - all semis, and/or all pistols, and/or all "assault weapons"...all they have to do is define all semi autos as "assault weapons", make them illegal too, and you have Australia. Which, btw, Obamao has already identified Australia's ban and collection from all Australian citizens as his ideal power he doesn't have. Like Logic said, if you don't open up any history books.....

 

go look up "slippery slope" and read up on the history of "registration" and "confiscation". The latter follows

the former.

[Clevfan4life]

Marty Brennheiser?

DaQwan Ran & Olufson?

Emmanuel CleatsByDre?

 

nigga Brennheiser yes yes....hit right on the head with your first guess.

[calfoxwc]

• Where in the text is the right to sell arms protected? Tour
• ****************************************************************************
• The Tenth Amendment requires that property may only be taken by the government after due process and with just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that "property" in this clause means both real and personal property, plus the rights to receive such for any legal reason.

  It follows that the right of a businessman to receive the profits of his endeavor, if the business is legal, are protected by the Constitution and that he and he alone has the right to sell, modify, or dispose of his enterprise.

  Thus, capitalism is indirectly protected in the Constitution.

   

  Also, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

   

  "The Democracy will cease to exist when you take from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

   

  And...

   

  "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of people under the pretense of taking care of them."

   

  The Constitution is written to spell out the duties, functions and responsibilities of the three branches of government. The Bill of Rights however, while never addressing this directly, does guaranty the right to the pursuit of happiness. Given Jefferson's comments as stated above, moving away from capitalism will be an infringement upon the people's right to pursue happiness.

   

  It would seem that those who do not like capitalism are the ones who would be held brutally accountable for their inactions and poor life decisions.

   

  America, was founded on the principle that anyone can amass great wealth and land. In the earliest hours of this country's life, only those of aristocracy could do that.

So, Tour, since our arms are owned by us, it is up to us to sell them, transfer them, as we wish without government interference.

Since when do you favor the gov being allowed to say "Everybody give us all your "x" " ?

Sure, you don't like "x". You just want to be allowed to arbitrarily define "x" to suit YOU and the rest of the libs.

[calfoxwc]

• If this knowledge is a concern, then why would any gun owner "open carry"?
• Why would any owner apply and qualify for a concealed carry permit?
• Why would any owner post about a gun they own or give any indication of ownership? TOUR
• *************************************************************************************
• Because, we have our guarantees that the gov can't take them. I personally would
• never open carry - I believe it makes you a target of assaault/theft. But open carry itself
• doesn't give the gov or anybody else the make, model, address, how many you own, etc etc etc....
• info the gov would need to violate our Constitution with registration and confiscation.
• Concealed carry? The permit does not include whether or not you own a gun, what type, make
• and model it is. People are getting concealed carry permits, without owning guns. Ask any
• instructor. Go ahead, make my hay.
• And people post about guns because on the net, for one, you very much have a lot of
• anonymity. And do you really think the gov is going to pass a law that they can outlaw the
• gun(s) of only one of more? than 300,000,000 gun owners ? The estimates are ridiculously bogus.

Any hint of of being a pouty, uneducated liberal getting through to you?

 

 

[calfoxwc]

How about this...

• Conservatives have been very adamant about not needing regulations to reduce the frequency of mass shootings. In the alternative they have recommended a registration of the mentally ill, so that they may be known to those performing the background checks for dealers and the sale prevented.
• Setting aside the privacy issues such a registry raises for the moment. How would a private seller know to not sell a firearm to a registered ill person? TOUR
• ***************************************************************************
• No, that is not true. It's more and more gun control regs that are not necessary. A private seller generally only sells
• to those he knows. How do you know you aren't selling a car or a knife at a garage sale, to someone
• who wants to build a car bomb or try to knife someone ? Get real for a change. The anti-gun movement is
• a political weapon weilded by the left. The left LIKES cars and knivess.

[calfoxwc]

No further questions, Tour?

[Tour2ma]

And, once the gov knows where they are, bingo. The gov can take them...

"Can" is the operative word and does not constitute infringement. Your fear of what registration (which was not what I was talking about) enables is not a defense... is not an argument.

 

Infringement would be in the actual "taking".

[calfoxwc]

sorry, not buyin it. registration leads to confiscation. So, registration is an infringement.

So, given that fact.... (google it at your leisure)...

 

and given the DEFINITION of "infringement"...

 

in·fringe·ment

/inˈfrinjmənt/

noun

• 1.the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation"copyright infringement"
• 2.the action of limiting or undermining something"the infringement of the right to privacy"

It is obvious that registration undermines gun ownership.

[Tour2ma]

No.. it's not...

 

If it were, then why is there no mass movement to eliminate all background checks?

[Mudfly]

.....there's no way to ever get everyone to register their guns and no way they could ever come and take them.So I dont nderstand why people are so worried about it..... if there is an attempt, Id expect them to backdoor gun owners by putting controls on ammo and ammo purchases.....or do like they did in the 90s ban, which only applied to new weapons purchased, but ignored all previously owned weapons....

 

Ive purchased several since background checks were required, so they probably know about a few of them at least....but no way to establish that one still has them or what you bought prior or through private means.....

 

How many people are actually going to step up and voluntarily register their previously owned weapons?.....I say not many....

[calfoxwc]

Exactly. Gun owners in NY did not comply.

 

And, Tour, nice lib change of subject:

 

"No.. it's not...

If it were, then why is there no mass movement to eliminate all background checks? " Tour

 

The background check system - the records are to be destroyed after six months, I think it is.

or was... intented to be.

I don't worry about that - the background check system is not "registration". A lot of folks have guns

already - purchased them used from other private owners, received them in estates, etc.

 

The gov has no way of getting a handle on the make, caliber, etc etc address, etc... of all guns.

Big difference. I like the background check system.

 

That's maybe millions, hundreds of millions of guns the gov doesn't know about. Which, btw,

is a reason I would like to buy a few used pistols as backup. We bought our 9mm new.

[Westside Steve]

No.. it's not...

 

If it were, then why is there no mass movement to eliminate all background checks?

Because they sound innocuous? And the fact that it really doesn't work but still the gun lobby doesn't want them to continue down the slippery slope.

 

And like we've agreed the left is loathe to put any teeth in any kind of background psychological check.

 

WSS

[Tour2ma]

Exactly. Gun owners in NY did not comply.

 

And, Tour, nice lib change of subject:

 

"No.. it's not...

If it were, then why is there no mass movement to eliminate all background checks? " Tour

 

The background check system - the records are to be destroyed after six months, I think it is.

or was... intented to be.

I don't worry about that - the background check system is not "registration". A lot of folks have guns

already - purchased them used from other private owners, received them in estates, etc.

 

The gov has no way of getting a handle on the make, caliber, etc etc address, etc... of all guns.

Big difference. I like the background check system.

 

That's maybe millions, hundreds of millions of guns the gov doesn't know about. Which, btw,

is a reason I would like to buy a few used pistols as backup. We bought our 9mm new.

 

 

Not sure what I changed, but in summary:

• Can't do private sale checks, because that is infringement...
• But existing checks are OK and liked...
• Because the Gov't you don't trust promised to destroy the records...

That about right?

 

Because they sound innocuous? And the fact that it really doesn't work but still the gun lobby doesn't want them to continue down the slippery slope.

 

And like we've agreed the left is loathe to put any teeth in any kind of background psychological check.

 

What doesn't work? And was I present at this agreement?

[Westside Steve]

You may not have been present. If you don't agree you are certainly free to dissent. If you think those on the left would have no problem with cracking the background checks wide open and shining the cold harsh light every Americans history of metal disturbance, sealed criminal records, etc then I think you are probably mistaken.

 

Hell as it is the HIPAA laws in my opinion are making it harder and harder for health authorities to do their jobs.

 

Now imagine that Leland and Buford can filtered through that whenever you come into the gun shop.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Not sure what I changed, but in summary:

• Can't do private sale checks, because that is infringement...
  
• But existing checks are OK and liked...
  
• Because the Gov't you don't trust promised to destroy the records...
  

That about right? Tour

*********************************

• Note the word above about "undermine". Can't do it - it's part of infringement. And historically,
  

registration leads to confiscation.

* Once again, the background checks are for new guns purchased. Now, I want those records destroyed,

but if they aren't, it isn't that big of a deal. The gov cannot afford to try to confiscation only new guns,...

there will still be used guns, guns owned for many years, by the hundreds of millions, probably. In other words,

backasswards knowing of new gun purchases is not any kind of threat to total gun confiscation. But registration

of all guns ...most certainly is infringement. It historically undermines all gun ownership.

• They may not destroy the records now, not sure, but read the above explanation. And, know this, surely a lot
  

of those new guns purchased. were privately traded for other guns. Pistol for a used shotgun, etc. A tyrannical

gov would just incur the wrath of most of America, while being completely unable to account for most guns

already owned, not purchased by those same addresses. All hell would break loose.

• So, any attempt to register all guns is the serious slippery slope towards confiscation - which is why registration
  

of all guns is the very bad, unacceptable step that will never be taken.