Glen beck and Bill O'Reilly think there should be gun registration

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    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’. :doh:

    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 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.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    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.


    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:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    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.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    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.
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    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:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    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.
     

    340six

    -Global Mod-
    Staff member
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Apr 12, 2012
    6,499
    113
    Kenner, La
    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
     

    JBP55

    La. CHP Instructor #409
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    338   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    16,999
    113
    Walker
    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.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    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:

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    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.

    You are usually a logical guy, so I’m going to make the assumption we are missing one another in communication. So I will try and explain why I believe you defining insanity.

    If it’s illegal to kill me, and you just can’t help but want to. You know that’s a crime but it won’t stop you. You also know it’s a crime to obtain a gun without an FFL transfer (if that was the case) why do you care if you break that law? You don’t do you? Now the question becomes where do you get a throw away gun? Maybe you steel it. Maybe you buy it on the ‘blackmarket’ but lets be realistic at best we slowed you down. It’s almost the same argument for banning the sale period. Guns are already out there.
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    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.

    I didn't say anything about an FFL for private sales. You are making this more than it needs to be by bringing introducing an FFL into the private sale.

    You are usually a logical guy, so I’m going to make the assumption we are missing one another in communication. So I will try and explain why I believe you defining insanity.

    If it’s illegal to kill me, and you just can’t help but want to. You know that’s a crime but it won’t stop you. You also know it’s a crime to obtain a gun without an FFL transfer (if that was the case) why do you care if you break that law? You don’t do you? Now the question becomes where do you get a throw away gun? Maybe you steel it. Maybe you buy it on the ‘blackmarket’ but lets be realistic at best we slowed you down. It’s almost the same argument for banning the sale period. Guns are already out there.

    Laws are legislated moralities. In a moral society, a law against murder would not be needed. With a society with immoral people, the laws are needed. But the immoral people will simply ignore the laws, making them useless. Should we get rid of all laws against murder?
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    I didn't say anything about an FFL for private sales. You are making this more than it needs to be by bringing introducing an FFL into the private sale.

    Not my intent. And you are dodging my point.

    Laws are legislated moralities. In a moral society, a law against murder would not be needed. With a society with immoral people, the laws are needed. But the immoral people will simply ignore the laws, making them useless. Should we get rid of all laws against murder?

    Ok I give you’ve got to be screwing with me.

    What about a law against useless laws. :rofl:
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    You sure giving that to the public is a wise idea? If LEO sometimes abuse their ability to run background checks can you imagine what would happen if you gave something similar to every swinging dick?

    It would be a simple “yes or no”, not a complete print out of someones arrest history. And as far as selling vehicles at 3am, where do they get the notary stamp?

    You will never stop the person who is hellbent at killing, but I think it would stop the ones teetering on the fence. The real world is not like tv, there aren’t open black markets on firearms in every neighborhood. Some will say they will just go to the inner city and buy them, that’s not likely and would mostly result in the person getting robbed of his saved up gun money. I’ve seen mentioned her about the elephant in the room so let’s talk about it. The gun owning community has done a pretty good job of putting the spotlight on them by doing things just because they can and then filming it. There is no one answer to this and I was just throwing out an idea because something is about to change wether we like it or not.

    PS- I have a little different perspective on illegal guns than some of you. The majority of firearms taken by myself off of criminals have been stolen, either from a car burglary or burglary of a home. I know that burglary is a crime but if people would just bring their firearms inside or at least lock them up in a vehicle and at home that would probably cut down on a lot of illegal firearms.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    And that’s only part of it. What never ceases to amaze me is how people don’t see the forest for the trees. Let me explain in the most basic terms:
    There is no power on this earth that can stop criminals from owning a gun.
    There is no power on this earth that can stop a criminal from acquiring a gun.
    One cannot simply snap their fingers and make all the guns in the world disappear and that is what would have to happen to keep a criminal from acquiring and owning a gun.
    Anyone who believes a shred of anything else is living in a fairy tale or completely hoodwinked by the propaganda spewed forth by a force that would seek to enslave an entire population.
    The only thing that any form of gun control will ever do is keep law abiding citizens from acquiring and owning guns or make it terribly difficult to do so.

    Let’s apply this to another issue:
    Illegal drugs... how long ago was heroin outlawed? Cocaine? LSD? Ecstasy? The production, sale and distribution, possession and use of these and other illegal substances has been illegal for longer than any of you have been alive. The US federal government and state agencies have spent billions upon billions of dollars employing every means and person one can imagine to stop the production, sale and distribution, possession and use of these substances. People are hunted, arrested, incarcerated and killed daily in the ‘war on drugs’ and yet they still exist in mind boggling amounts. Enough to exist on any street corner of this nation at any time. How can this be?
    How can anyone truly believe that you can keep illegal drugs out of the hands of those who will completely disregard the laws that govern them?

    There is no earthly solution to gun violence that would allow mankind to exist on this planet.
    There is no form of gun control that would affect the target individuals without affecting the entirety of the law abiding population.
    A potential mass murderer is not in the least concerned about breaking any law on the books if he’s willing to murder someone.
    Laws are not magical spells that control the masses. One can simply choose not to obey any law at any given time.

    So, accept the hype if that helps you cope with today’s world. Buy into the propaganda if you can’t accept the facts, but be ready to give up every freedom you’ve ever known.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    So before you go all molon labia on me, I’m assuming you view the law preventing felons from owning guns is infringing on their rights? I’m just trying to understand your mindset to see if it’s even worth a conversation


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    It would be a simple *yes or no*, not a complete print out of someones arrest history. And as far as selling vehicles at 3am, where do they get the notary stamp?

    You will never stop the person who is hellbent at killing, but I think it would stop the ones teetering on the fence. The real world is not like tv, there aren’t open black markets on firearms in every neighborhood. Some will say they will just go to the inner city and buy them, that’s not likely and would mostly result in the person getting robbed of his saved up gun money. I’ve seen mentioned her about the elephant in the room so let’s talk about it. The gun owning community has done a pretty good job of putting the spotlight on them by doing things just because they can and then filming it. There is no one answer to this and I was just throwing out an idea because something is about to change wether we like it or not.

    PS- I have a little different perspective on illegal guns than some of you. The majority of firearms taken by myself off of criminals have been stolen, either from a car burglary or burglary of a home. I know that burglary is a crime but if people would just bring their firearms inside or at least lock them up in a vehicle and at home that would probably cut down on a lot of illegal firearms.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Hey I appreciate your perspective and the work you do. I don’t disagree something is about to happen, but the question is should it? And should we give in a take it. I feel being told give up and let it happen is akin to being told to relax during prison rape. When we are bigger and badder as the bastards trying to take ass.

    On the yes no website idea maybe I decided I’m going to use that as a means to screen for employment any no’s aren’t considered, but I could just get consent for a background check and do that a $19 a piece, but maybe I’m cheap and an idiot. I maybe it’s worth the risk maybe not. I could also fake a bunch of sales just before the feds decide to force a total ban those searches would only legalize my fake sales. I just don’t think its worth the cost and risk of offering it to the public. Poke holes in my ‘what if’ scenarios I’m obviously not on my A game today.

    The notary thing is easy. When I lived in Louisiana I bought trailers and automobiles like this. Bought it had title signed over by seller with photo of sellers license. I’ve then taken that to a notary who stamped it and issued me a tag. It’s not the proper way of doing things and push come to shove, I believe the notary and I technically committed fraud (because the notary didn’t actually witness a consensual transaction), but the purchases were consenting and I always compared the sellers DL with the title just in case. I know tons of people who have purchased things this way.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    So before you go all molon labia on me, I’m assuming you view the law preventing felons from owning guns is infringing on their rights? I’m just trying to understand your mindset to see if it’s even worth a conversation


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Wait I do. There are tons of infringements in addition to that. I’m not saying trash them all (not opposed to it either) but, more infringement isn’t the answer either it just makes us more vulnerable.

    At the end of the day our biggest problem is our constitution wasn’t written to function in the immoral society we have become, and those of us who are distrusting of the government but rational struggle with that concept.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Not my intent. And you are dodging my point.



    Ok I give you’ve got to be screwing with me.

    What about a law against useless laws. :rofl:

    Nope...not messing with you. You seem to be saying a requirement that a private sale must go through a notary isn't good because people ignore the law and sell vehicles at 3 in the morning. My question to you is the same one you seem to be asking me. If people disregard the law with their actions, should the law dictating their actions be there in the first place?
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    Nope...not messing with you. You seem to be saying a requirement that a private sale must go through a notary isn't good because people ignore the law and sell vehicles at 3 in the morning. My question to you is the same one you seem to be asking me. If people disregard the law with their actions, should the law dictating their actions be there in the first place?

    Ok that’s a fair question. When the law will have little benefit, it infringes on a right, and would only act as a means to impede otherwise lawful transactions then yes. Never mind the fact that most ever gun used in recent mass shooting were purchased using the NICS program. And the guns that this law will likely never slow much less stop are the ones that actually matter the inner-city gangbanger gun sales and the cartel gun sales. It will be you and me who get stuck paying for an FFL to get government approval.

    And my slightly tin-foil maybe extreme scenario concern, is it makes it easier on the government to collect the guns for the good guys when that time comes. All they do is go to every FFL and say, ‘hand over your records’. From there they compile a list of doors to knock on. If you sold that gun privately or gifted it before the universal background checks the person who now owns it has a better shot at getting to keep it.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    Another concern on the yes/no website idea. What happens if a person puts your information in repeatedly for a handgun or other purchase? Currently I think if you try to buy too many handguns in a short time frame you get a wait (maybe a no I’ve only been grew lighted). I can see issues arise from the idea.
     
    Top Bottom