(November 1, 2020 at 2:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 1, 2020 at 7:54 am)onlinebiker Wrote: No I am not equating.

I am showing you a perspective.

You don't buy guns - so you have no understanding of that situation.

You do however take a piss from time to time - I assume.

Now - quit playing false equivalence and ask yourself - would you find it restrictive to play the "Mother may I?" game each time you did ANY legal ordinary action?

I’m not getting across, so I’ll try again. 

Let’s say that once you pass whatever vetting process is in place to buy your first gun, all vetting for future gun purchases should be waived. In other words, once someone is determined to be a law abiding citizen, we can presume that they are ALWAYS going to be a law abiding citizen (please correct me if that’s not what you’re saying).

Sorry to be blunt, but that’s just flat out one of the stupidest positions I’ve ever heard. 

Boru

---

(November 1, 2020 at 3:57 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(November 1, 2020 at 2:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I’m not getting across, so I’ll try again. 

Let’s say that once you pass whatever vetting process is in place to buy your first gun, all vetting for future gun purchases should be waived. In other words, once someone is determined to be a law abiding citizen, we can presume that they are ALWAYS going to be a law abiding citizen (please correct me if that’s not what you’re saying).

Sorry to be blunt, but that’s just flat out one of the stupidest positions I’ve ever heard. 

Boru

We subscribe here to this silly theory - it's called "innocent til proven guilty".

You want the opposite.

...

You want gun owners to prove that they will never be a threat - which is bullshit...NOBODY can prove future actions. They can only recite the story that the "approving agency" wants to hear.

I would prefer it if we just restrict the rights of those problem children who have already proven themselves unworthy.

A one time background check would be an acceptable compromise - though I doubt it's effectiveness.

(November 1, 2020 at 3:57 pm)a fireaonlinebiker Wrote:

(November 1, 2020 at 2:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I’m not getting across, so I’ll try again. 

Let’s say that once you pass whatever vetting process is in place to buy your first gun, all vetting for future gun purchases should be waived. In other words, once someone is determined to be a law abiding citizen, we can presume that they are ALWAYS going to be a law abiding citizen (please correct me if that’s not what you’re saying).

Sorry to be blunt, but that’s just flat out one of the stupidest positions I’ve ever heard. m

Boru

---

We subscribe here to this silly theory - it's called "innocent til proven guilty".

You want the opposite.

...

You want gun owners to prove that they will never be a threat - which is bullshit...NOBODY can prove future actions. They can only recite the story that the "approving agency" wants to hear.

I would prefer it if we just restrict the rights of those problem children who have already proven themselves unworthy.

A one time background check would be an acceptable compromise - though I doubt it's effectiveness.

Of course no one can prove future actions, so lucky for me that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not remotely suggesting restricting gun ownership based on what someone might do in the future, but on what they’ve already done.

This seems to be pretty much what you’re suggesting. The chief difference is that I think it should be done more than once, because of what people may do in the interval between gun purchases. And I agree with you that a one-time background check is unlikely to be effective, for the same reason.

Here’s a not very hypothetical that may illustrate what I’m getting at:

At age 25, Joe buys his first pistol. The background check is fine - he’s not a felon, not illegal, he’s none of the things that would preclude him from owning a firearm. Two years later, Joe leaves his gun on the coffee table, where his six year old son finds it and shoots himself in the head, which kills him instantly. A police report is filed, but the courts decline to prosecute Joe - it was a horrible, tragic accident. If Joe doesn’t go through another background check prior to his next gun purchase, the state will have allowed a person who has proved himself unfit to own a firearm to buy one.

Boru

(November 1, 2020 at 4:34 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 1, 2020 at 3:57 pm)a fireaonlinebiker Wrote:

---

We subscribe here to this silly theory - it's called "innocent til proven guilty".

You want the opposite.

...

You want gun owners to prove that they will never be a threat - which is bullshit...NOBODY can prove future actions. They can only recite the story that the "approving agency" wants to hear.

I would prefer it if we just restrict the rights of those problem children who have already proven themselves unworthy.

A one time background check would be an acceptable compromise - though I doubt it's effectiveness.

Of course no one can prove future actions, so lucky for me that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not remotely suggesting restricting gun ownership based on what someone might do in the future, but on what they’ve already done.

This seems to be pretty much what you’re suggesting. The chief difference is that I think it should be done more than once, because of what people may do in the interval between gun purchases. And I agree with you that a one-time background check is unlikely to be effective, for the same reason.

Here’s a not very hypothetical that may illustrate what I’m getting at:

At age 25, Joe buys his first pistol. The background check is fine - he’s not a felon, not illegal, he’s none of the things that would preclude him from owning a firearm. Two years later, Joe leaves his gun on the coffee table, where his six year old son finds it and shoots himself in the head, which kills him instantly. A police report is filed, but the courts decline to prosecute Joe - it was a horrible, tragic accident. If Joe doesn’t go through another background check prior to his next gun purchase, the state will have allowed a person who has proved himself unfit to own a firearm to buy one.

Boru

So make Joe get an "I'm not fit to own firearms" stamp on his ID. Make it a felony to not register (like sex offenders). Make that info public. Like sex offenders.

That will do far more good than a ridiculous mountain of paperwork. -generated by responsible gun owners - that does nothing at all.

(October 30, 2020 at 5:22 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: If you're gun is "safely away" then it's not immediately ready for use. Intruders ARE ready and don't care who gets shot. So, among the valuables you lose is a gun.

I strongly suggest you visit endfamilyfire.org.

Not quite; It's safely away in the sense children cannot access it. I can, quite readily if need be.

(November 2, 2020 at 1:23 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(October 30, 2020 at 5:22 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: If you're gun is "safely away" then it's not immediately ready for use. Intruders ARE ready and don't care who gets shot. So, among the valuables you lose is a gun.

I strongly suggest you visit endfamilyfire.org.

Not quite; It's safely away in the sense children cannot access it. I can, quite readily if need be.

LOL, no. endfamilyfire.org

(November 2, 2020 at 1:46 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 2, 2020 at 1:23 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Not quite; It's safely away in the sense children cannot access it. I can, quite readily if need be.

LOL, no. endfamilyfire.org

Yes, I saw the link already, You don't need to spam it. I will be reading up on it and appreciate the info.

Clearly were of differing opinions, I've stated my stance and hopefully answered your questions to some satisfaction.

I don't think there is really much more to add so unless you have any further questions I'll leave this be.  Be well. 

RAmen.

(November 2, 2020 at 2:51 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(November 2, 2020 at 1:46 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: LOL, no. endfamilyfire.org

Yes, I saw the link already, You don't need to spam it. I will be reading up on it and appreciate the info.

Clearly were of differing opinions, I've stated my stance and hopefully answered your questions to some satisfaction.

I don't think there is really much more to add so unless you have any further questions I'll leave this be.  Be well. 

RAmen.

I'll be spamming it until children aren't killing children. YMMVBIDC.

(October 31, 2020 at 3:34 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Start arming antifa.  Arm the black panthers again and have them follow cops around.  Arm labor unions and gay rights groups and hispanic people and muslim immigrants and all the other groups republicans hate.  They'll suddenly start supporting gun control when "those people" start arming themselves.  

Okay but this is a legitimate left-wing argument in favor of gun ownership. Are you a demographic susceptible to political violence? Buy a gun. This is a major difference between liberals and leftists in America.

Cops with guns = bad.

Joe Jackass with gun = liberty!

I need to tattoo that some place.

(November 1, 2020 at 5:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So, there are 42 states where felons, fugitives, drug addicts, the mentally ill, the dishonorably discharged, and people in the US illegally could be in possession of firearms and nothing is done about it.

Does that strike you as a problem?

Boru

OFC, same as I'm always droning on about.  The laws exist, we don't enforce them.