Join BayouShooter For Free
Pelican

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 456 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 78
  1. #41
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangswitch View Post
    Interesting didn’t know there were 24/7 notaries. Still two consenting parties are required to find a third who is consenting to participate in the transition. Surly that could never ‘infringe’.
    It's no more infringing than going to a gun store and buying a gun. The seller and buyer must find a third to consent to that sale.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangswitch View Post
    There is no need to address human nature and how laws are so easily subverted?

    I just gave you the closest analog to universal background I believe is available in the country and how it is so handily subverted by some of the most upstanding citizens when it’s not convenient. Surely you have to see the relevance.
    Nope. Most laws can easily be subverted by those who wish to subvert the laws.

  2. #42
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    It's no more infringing than going to a gun store and buying a gun. The seller and buyer must find a third to consent to that sale.
    There is currently no consenting third party required for private transactions, and while the NICS program provides some value I do believe it has ‘infringed’ and shouldn’t exist in accordance with our constitution. But that’s also why I quoted John Adams to you early.


    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    Nope. Most laws can easily be subverted by those who wish to subvert the laws.
    And that’s my point make a new law to prevent law-breakers from gaining access to a tool they will use to break the law. You are trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble.
    Last edited by Bangswitch; September 11th, 2019 at 09:04 AM.

  3. #43
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangswitch View Post
    There is currently no consenting third party required for private transactions, and while the NICS program provides some value I do believe it has ‘infringed’ and shouldn’t exist in accordance with our constitution. But that’s also why I quoted John Adams to you early.

    And that’s my point make a new law to prevent law-breakers from gaining access to a tool they will use to break the law. You are trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble.
    The government is the consenting third party that must be involved in the sale from a private business to the customer. The difference is the third party in a commercial sale has the ability to deny the transaction. With a private sale, the third party is in place to make sure the transaction is between consenting parties.

    It's not trying to bail out the titanic with a thimble. Murder is illegal yet people subvert that law.

  4. #44
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    The government is the consenting third party that must be involved in the sale from a private business to the customer. The difference is the third party in a commercial sale has the ability to deny the transaction. With a private sale, the third party is in place to make sure the transaction is between consenting parties.

    It's not trying to bail out the titanic with a thimble. Murder is illegal yet people subvert that law.
    It absolutely is. By creating a new law you are saying our current laws aren’t enough, so let’s create another law to prevent you from breaking the first. Like you said murder is illegal but it still happens. If you pass a law to try to prevent someone from murder when murder is already illegal you are defining insanity.

  5. #45
    Seriously Misunderstood!

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    I understand where you are going with this but this isn't a good comparison. Let's eliminate the war on drugs. How do we do that? Do we decriminalize drugs or even legalize them for unrestricted use? The parallel would be allow anyone to possess a firearm. Or would you want to keep the acquisition of narcotics the same, i.e., a highly regulated system that requires you to go in every time you need new medicine?
    Possessing, buying, or using drugs is NOT a Constitutional Right. Then someone may say, "freedom of choice is, or the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness!" Then I would say, fine; but suicide is and has been illegal from damn near the beginning. Some could, and do, argue that using and abusing drugs will kill you. So that argument loses to.

    As a young lad I used to believe, foolishly and naively, that our government would always do what is best for us and the country. There are tomes of examples in US history of how government, politicians, and bureaucrats have allowed Americans to die or be killed, in the pursuit of their individual financial gains, status, or lust for power. In modern US history, it is worse now than before.

    If I thought for one nanosecond, that these politicians gave a rat's ass about the safety and welfare of Americans in the pursuit of this degradation and erosion of American Constitutional Rights, I may be empathetic enough to at least debate it.

    They don't! This is the slow boil of American liberty. Legislation in NEVER enough to them when the endgame is absolute control and power over the populace.

    Let me write these "red flag laws" guaranteeing that American Civil Liberties are always upheld, and regardless of what the wished outcomes would be, and I'll listen.

    As for a "registry" or "data base" for guns and their owners, no!
    Last edited by Emperor; September 11th, 2019 at 11:10 AM.
    Remember; The 2nd Amendment Protects the 1st!
    Lyndon Johnson (Democrat & Father of US Welfare System) we'll give them stuff........."and have them ni&&ers voting democratic for the next 200 years!"
    "I'm a self reliant, self supported American trapped in a "Free Shit" society!"
    Be Warned! Amazon.com is Skynet!
    PLEASE STOP USING GOOGLE!
    I don't believe in a supreme deity; but have to believe Trump's win was Divine Intervention!

  6. #46
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Bangswitch View Post
    It absolutely is. By creating a new law you are saying our current laws aren’t enough, so let’s create another law to prevent you from breaking the first. Like you said murder is illegal but it still happens. If you pass a law to try to prevent someone from murder when murder is already illegal you are defining insanity.
    Repeating that it is does not make it so.

    Reading back over your posts, you feel having to involve a third party involved in the sale is ok if the third party has the ability to deny the sale but it's not ok if the third party is there to ensure both parties are consenting. You disagree with having the sale notarized because it denies someone the ability to make the purchase at 3 am. But If they are able to make the purchase at 3 am, your objection moves to the law not being needed. I just want to make sure I have everything right.

  7. #47
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor View Post
    Possessing, buying, or using drugs is NOT a Constitutional Right.
    I know. That's why I said it was not a good comparison. But since they did make the comparison, I played along.

  8. #48
    -Global Mod-

    User Info Menu

    Just saw on FOX News Laura Ingram show gun sales up 15% and large Cap mags with talks of Bans and Buy Backs.
    National Shooting Sports Foundation I think was the source
    I remeber beong at Cabela's in 2016 when guys were buying multable cheap entry-level AR's at $899.00

  9. #49
    La. CHP Instructor #409

    Premium Member

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 340six View Post
    Just saw on FOX News Laura Ingram show gun sales up 15% and large Cap mags with talks of Bans and Buy Backs.
    National Shooting Sports Foundation I think was the source
    I remeber beong at Cabela's in 2016 when guys were buying multable cheap entry-level AR's at $899.00
    I have about 100 magazines they can buy back at $100 each.

  10. #50
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    Repeating that it is does not make it so.

    Reading back over your posts, you feel having to involve a third party involved in the sale is ok if the third party has the ability to deny the sale but it's not ok if the third party is there to ensure both parties are consenting. You disagree with having the sale notarized because it denies someone the ability to make the purchase at 3 am. But If they are able to make the purchase at 3 am, your objection moves to the law not being needed. I just want to make sure I have everything right.
    No you miss me entirely the need for a notary and the fact it gets skipped is an example of a private party transaction that requires a third party and you people easily get around it. The purpose for the notary is as you said proving consent for both private parties. The need for an FFL as a third party brings a fourth parties consent into the equation. You are making this more than I meant it to be.

    Plainly stated requiring a notary to be present to transfer an automobile is too much of an imposition for a large chunk of our population and an automobile is not a fundamental right.
    Last edited by Bangswitch; September 11th, 2019 at 01:48 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •