Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
glummer,
let's see your data that shows that shows this law has not done what it was intended to do. i've provided data, and you just simply reject it. now its your turn to provide some data.
$1000 reward to turn in an illegal gunowner
- Thread starter Autolycus
- Start date
- Status
glummer,
let's see your data that shows that shows this law has not done what it was intended to do. i've provided data, and you just simply reject it. now its your turn to provide some data.
ss
Spreadfire
It’s like you live in a city with hundred roads out; you block ONE road, at great cost, provoking enormous controversy, polarizing the community, generating great political opposition; and you pat yourself on the back for “stopping” escaping criminals. Sheesh.
Why? Is the something magical about gunshop guns? If you find your family slaughtered, will it make you feel better if the weapon came from the black market?
Spreadfire
No, it’s not. The only claim I have made is that you lack proof that denying purchase accomplishes anything that would justify the social costs involved. And the irrelevance of YOUR data is sufficient to show that; if you had more convincing data, dealing with actual PREVENTION of crime, you would have used them.
It’s like you live in a city with hundred roads out; you block ONE road, at great cost, provoking enormous controversy, polarizing the community, generating great political opposition; and you pat yourself on the back for “stopping” escaping criminals. Sheesh.
rogerlmeyer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 9
First, who decides what constitutes an "illegal gun owner"?
Second, has anyone besides me thought about where this ill concieved effort could, and probably would, lead in the war against private ownership of firearms?
Three, has everyone in New York completely lost their minds (if they ever had one)?
Four, what is the good from one criminal turning in another criminal in order to collect a reward to finance the second criminal's activities, especially when New York City is literally falling apart at the seams from lack of funding for such non-essential activities as education, housing, street maintanance, etc. I guess it is much more important to spend their funds (that haven't been absconded with by the politicians) on a project that is doomed to failure before it starts and that will have absolutely no impact on crime.
What is anyone thinking who would back such a stupid project?:banghead:
Second, has anyone besides me thought about where this ill concieved effort could, and probably would, lead in the war against private ownership of firearms?
Three, has everyone in New York completely lost their minds (if they ever had one)?
Four, what is the good from one criminal turning in another criminal in order to collect a reward to finance the second criminal's activities, especially when New York City is literally falling apart at the seams from lack of funding for such non-essential activities as education, housing, street maintanance, etc. I guess it is much more important to spend their funds (that haven't been absconded with by the politicians) on a project that is doomed to failure before it starts and that will have absolutely no impact on crime.
What is anyone thinking who would back such a stupid project?:banghead:
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
ill take that as you are unable to provide any specific information. i provided mine and you discounted it without offering any evidence to counter it.
ill just consider it that you have no information to counter the evidence presented until you do otherwise.
crazed_ss
Member
I already explained it to you. Not allowing felons and ex-cons to purchase guns from gun shops and FFLs removes an easy avenue for firearms ownership from them. I realize many people here support allowing ex-cons to buy guns.. I dont.
Actually... yes, it would. At least I'd know reasonable steps had been taken to prevent prohibited persons from getting a gun.
You provided IRRELEVANT information. The subject was criminals successfully OBTAINING guns, or not. As I have repeatedly pointed out (and you have consistently ignored), your information does not address that.
You have presented no evidence.
You could post pages of irrelevant data randomly taken from an encyclopedia; it would still not be evidence of whether criminals are STOPPED by the laws in question.
You have NOT explained why it is important enough to justify the cost, when there are so many OTHER easy avenues available.
If there are a hundred holes in the dike, and you stick your finger in one, why would you think that was some sort of accomplishment?
Ah. So the important thing here is your FEELINGS.
NOT the real world effects. Many of which are negative for gun-owners. And the rest of us are supposed to submit to insulting restrictions, to make you FEEL better? Are you a member of the Million Moms, by any chance?
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
glummer
a simple "no i can't/won't" woulda been easier
a simple "no i can't/won't" woulda been easier
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Crazed ss, cassandrasdaddy, and Spreadfire Arms,
I've got a question for you three: If violent felons and criminals(those who cannot be trusted with arms) were to be kept in prison, would you agree there is no "need" for law forbidding them arms and no "need" for background checks on everyone else? All that would be needed in stead would be law laying out sentencing guidelines prohibiting the release of persons convicted of crimes using weapons and/or crimes of violence using weapons including the martial use of any body parts such as hands, teeth, feet, etc.
The nearly eliminated load on law enforcement dealing with repeat offenders, the elimination of the licensing of FFLs et seq commiserate with the elimination of the F and E part of BATFE, the elimination of the background check system, and the greatly reduced losses to the law abiding citizenry would more than compensate for the cost of permanently incarcerating those criminals. More death sentences would be prudent as well.
Don't come back with the excuse that there is no way to identify who might be a foreign national who is here illegally because there is a cure for that as well. There are institutions or guardianship for the unstable, and guardianship(parents, etc) for the immature.
What say you?
Woody
A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
I've got a question for you three: If violent felons and criminals(those who cannot be trusted with arms) were to be kept in prison, would you agree there is no "need" for law forbidding them arms and no "need" for background checks on everyone else? All that would be needed in stead would be law laying out sentencing guidelines prohibiting the release of persons convicted of crimes using weapons and/or crimes of violence using weapons including the martial use of any body parts such as hands, teeth, feet, etc.
The nearly eliminated load on law enforcement dealing with repeat offenders, the elimination of the licensing of FFLs et seq commiserate with the elimination of the F and E part of BATFE, the elimination of the background check system, and the greatly reduced losses to the law abiding citizenry would more than compensate for the cost of permanently incarcerating those criminals. More death sentences would be prudent as well.
Don't come back with the excuse that there is no way to identify who might be a foreign national who is here illegally because there is a cure for that as well. There are institutions or guardianship for the unstable, and guardianship(parents, etc) for the immature.
What say you?
Woody
A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
i say
you are dreaming
you are dreaming
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Cassandrasdaddy said:
How about answering the question?
Woody
ConstitutionCowboy
member
All Else Aside,
How do you rectify all the infringements by government to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with the prohibition in the Second Amendment?
Woody
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.
How do you rectify all the infringements by government to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with the prohibition in the Second Amendment?
Woody
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
no. there are many other questions on the 4473 which disqualify you as well:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#prohibited
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Y'all reckon a pore lil ol' innocent thread gets lonesome when folks wander way off from the original topic?
, Art
, Art- Status
