ATF "gun verification"

[GunRelated]

Interesting. So if there's a guy reaching into the window of a vehicle and going through the center console and there's no victim there to say "stop, thief," the passing police should assume the guy just lost his car keys and needed something out of his car immediately.

I only responded to the first question to add some comedy.

The best I can do for either of these examples is - wait until you know a crime is being committed, or not, and proceed as necessary.

Both are a bit of a stretch to compare to the given topic where millions of people are being treated as possible criminals for -exercising a fundamental right-

Also, neither example involves something that the government clearly wants to make as hard as possible for people to freely and anonymously own.

 

[GunRelated]

Like only take firearms from felons after they kill someone with it, maybe during a robbery, maybe during a drug dealer shoot out. This sounds like the smart way to go

If someone wants to kill another person, they do not need a firearm to do so. Also, it is and has been a no go for felons to legally purchase firearms, but they still get them somehow. It's almost like the laws don't prevent criminals from finding ways of breaking them.

 

[GunRelated]

So do you believe a law should exist that forbids felons (or certain felon) from possessing firearms?

I think my answer to this was, if anything, make it illegal for violent felons to possess. This would not affect any law abiding person in any way.

"But you said ALL gun laws are infringements" - correct.

 

[Mr Smooth]

If someone wants to kill another person, they do not need a firearm to do so. Also, it is and has been a no go for felons to legally purchase firearms, but they still get them somehow. It's almost like the laws don't prevent criminals from finding ways of breaking them.

So your deal is it is ok for anyone to buy a firearm, no background checks, they infringe on innocent buyers, but some people are not allowed to own fire arms. This will definitely put more firearms into the hands of criminals or people not allowed to own them. Is this the new logic to get gun haters off our backs? Let everyone buy a gun and take them away from criminals when you catch them with firearms.

 

[GunRelated]

So your take is that current gun laws may be illegal and eroding the Constitution? If so the process to remove them is clearing stated in the Constitution. If your good with the laws is there an issue?

I am a gun owner,and I think may be called a gun advocate (own between 50 and 100 firearms)
I also attempt to the best of my ability to abide by the law. Current laws may be unconstitutional in some areas and may be infringing in some areas but they still are the law until removed. I also held a FFL license and multiple purchases by LAW had to be reported. I believe that requirement was added in the 1968 gun control act. It is there to potentially identify straw purchases or other illegal gun dealing activities. Let's call it a "tip" provided by the FFL to the ATF that multiple purchases have occurred. It doesn't say they are illegal but here is the "tip". What the ATF does the determine why they come knocking on your door is something you should ask them if you get a knock. There may be a large list of reasons why you are getting a knock.
If I get a knock I will ask why and if they want to see my firearms I will gladly show them to them on my front porch. I don't feel it is an infringement they are just trying to do their job in minimizing straw purchases.

I'm not 100% following the first part but I'm not here to change laws and I'm not here to convince anyone else to believe what I believe. However, a voice of reason that falls inline with the original principles of this country might be worth hearing, for some.

They don't call it dangerous freedom for nothing. You either accept a trade off of liberties for the illusion of safety, or you accept personal responsibility for your own safety and get rid of the nanny state. This was THE reason this country was established and it is THE reason so many people fought and died over it.

 

[GunRelated]

So your deal is it is ok for anyone to buy a firearm, no background checks, they infringe on innocent buyers, but some people are not allowed to own fire arms. This will definitely put more firearms into the hands of criminals or people not allowed to own them. Is this the new logic to get gun haters off our backs? Let everyone buy a gun and take them away from criminals when you catch them with firearms.

I don't base my beliefs on the concerns or feelings of people like that.

Once they take away our right to private firearms sales, we will surely have plenty of people making the same argument you are making now.

 

[Mr Smooth]

I'm not 100% following the first part but I'm not here to change laws and I'm not here to convince anyone else to believe what I believe. However, a voice of reason that falls inline with the original principles of this country might be worth hearing, for some.

They don't call it dangerous freedom for nothing. You either accept a trade off of liberties for the illusion of safety, or you accept personal responsibility for your own safety and get rid of the nanny state. This was THE reason this country was established and it is THE reason so many people fought and died over it.

And they wrote laws which are expected to be followed! If you don't like the laws get your reps to change them. The laws they wrote give you a process to change them, USE IT!

 

[GunRelated]

And they wrote laws which are expected to be followed! If you don't like the laws get your reps to change them. The laws they wrote give you a process to change them, USE IT!

Totally

 

[Mr Smooth]

I don't base my beliefs on the concerns or feelings of people like that.

Once they take away our right to private firearms sales, we will surely have plenty of people making the same argument you are making now.

They are attempting to come up with a solution everyone can live with like keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally. I am for that because I am not a criminal and not mentally ill and I love my guns. I want my guns but the population like myself ain't getting any higher in percentage to the total population. Just because a lot of guns were sold in the Covid years doesn't mean gun lover population is growing. Gun lover population percentage ain't growing it is diminishing as a percent of overall

 

[GunRelated]

They are attempting to come up with a solution everyone can live with like keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally. I am for that because I am not a criminal and not mentally ill and I love my guns. I want my guns but the population like myself ain't getting any higher in percentage to the total population. Just because a lot of guns were sold in the Covid years doesn't mean gun lover population is growing. Gun lover population percentage ain't growing it is diminishing as a percent of overall

I think where your position fails is, you are strictly a "gun lover", as opposed to being a freedom lover. Keep in mind that true freedom means not having to answer to anyone unless and until your actions negatively affect other people.

Either you don't care because you feel that you are unaffected, or you are blind to the fact that none of these laws truly benefit you.

This line of belief doesn't fall far from the people who say "I don't have anything to hide, so I don't care if I'm being surveilled"

Criminals are criminals because they do not follow laws. There is no way to prevent firearm ownership for criminals without infringements made upon law abiding people.

 

[Mr Smooth]

I think where your position fails is, you are strictly a "gun lover", as opposed to being a freedom lover. Keep in mind that true freedom means not having to answer to anyone unless and until your actions negatively affect other people.

Either you don't care because you feel that you are unaffected, or you are blind to the fact that none of these laws truly benefit you.

This line of belief doesn't fall far from the people who say "I don't have anything to hide, so I don't care if I'm being surveilled"

Criminals are criminals because they do not follow laws. There is no way to prevent firearm ownership for criminals without infringements made upon law abiding people.

The same message about if you don’t like the laws change them applies.

How do you come to the conclusion I am not a Freedom Lover? You don't have any idea on my beliefs in this area. I don't believe anyone likes being under surveillance but in any society it will exist, someone is always watching somewhere

 

[GunRelated]

How do you come to the conclusion I am not a Freedom Lover?

Advocating for laws and agencies that target millions law abiding people is a pretty good tell.

Here, have a meme

 

[thperez1972]

I only responded to the first question to add some comedy.

The best I can do for either of these examples is - wait until you know a crime is being committed, or not, and proceed as necessary.

Both are a bit of a stretch to compare to the given topic where millions of people are being treated as possible criminals for -exercising a fundamental right-

Also, neither example involves something that the government clearly wants to make as hard as possible for people to freely and anonymously own.

No, while it's not a exact comparison, it's not that big of a stretch. Both are inherently legal behaviors that are shared by both law abiding citizens and criminals and, in the case of the criminals, is directly related to the crime. It seems your stance is the police should not ignore any behavior unless they have prior knowledge that a crime has been committed.

 

[Mr Smooth]

Advocating for laws and agencies that target millions law abiding people is a pretty good tell.

Here, have a meme

So you would take it to the limit where you lose more rights than finding an acceptable ( suspect that some will say nothing is acceptable) position that the majority of our society might deem "an acceptable compromise ". Gee we might keep our most sacred rights that way.
The future isn't going to get better for Freedom Lovers, current population changes will make a lot of thinkers in that light dinosaurs. Maybe Montana leaving the union could be the place to be for more freedom. Less chance of a civil war there

 

[thperez1972]

I think my answer to this was, if anything, make it illegal for violent felons to possess. This would not affect any law abiding person in any way.

"But you said ALL gun laws are infringements" - correct.

Your answer was "if felons need to be restricted, the only way is to charge them when you catch them with one." But my question wasn't "if we were to restrict them, how would we do it?" My question was "do you believe a law restricting felons should exist?" Put another way, do you believe some felons should be restricted from owning firearms?

In order to restrict the purchase of firearms by felons, that requires a background check which is an infringement on innocent people. Therefore, if we have to restrict felons in some way, the only way would be to charge them with possession when you catch them. Also, I do not agree that ALL felons should be restricted, only violent offenses warrant this.

 

[thperez1972]

Advocating for laws and agencies that target millions law abiding people is a pretty good tell.

Law abiding citizens require laws to be law abiding citizens.

 

[GunRelated]

Law abiding citizens require laws to be law abiding citizens.

Never said I believed in lawlessness. There has to be a standard set forthe, with consequences; a code of ethics, if you will.

 

[GunRelated]

So you would take it to the limit where you lose more rights than finding an acceptable ( suspect that some will say nothing is acceptable) position that the majority of our society might deem "an acceptable compromise ". Gee we might keep our most sacred rights that way.
The future isn't going to get better for Freedom Lovers, current population changes will make a lot of thinkers in that light dinosaurs. Maybe Montana leaving the union could be the place to be for more freedom. Less chance of a civil war there

What was once regarded as a sacred, fundamental right, in it's original intended form, is now viewed as pushing the limit
Basic rights are not meant to be molded to fit society, society should be molded to fit those rights.
Compromising on gun laws is how we got to where we are today, where you might get a visit from federal agents for legally purchasing multiple guns at one time, bans being reviewed even after they have proven not to work, putting an accessory on the wrong length weapon makes you an instant felon, a piece of velcro on your (not a) stock prevents you from being a felon, "ghost guns",.. I could go on for days.
There is no proverbial line in the sand for gun laws. They have, and will always, only move to further restrict law abiding people.

 

[GunRelated]

Your answer was "if felons need to be restricted, the only way is to charge them when you catch them with one." But my question wasn't "if we were to restrict them, how would we do it?" My question was "do you believe a law restricting felons should exist?" Put another way, do you believe some felons should be restricted from owning firearms?

If there is a way to restrict convicted violent people, without infringements on law abiding people, sure.

 

[Magdump]

I'm not 100% following the first part but I'm not here to change laws and I'm not here to convince anyone else to believe what I believe. However, a voice of reason that falls inline with the original principles of this country might be worth hearing, for some.

They don't call it dangerous freedom for nothing. You either accept a trade off of liberties for the illusion of safety, or you accept personal responsibility for your own safety and get rid of the nanny state. This was THE reason this country was established and it is THE reason so many people fought and died over it.

Uh, yeah. Could I get a extra large order of that nanny state free stuff please?