ATF "gun verification"

[GunRelated]

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.

My belief is that a people should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. If a person were to legally purchase 10,000 firearms, then no crime has been committed and therefore should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Innocent people should not warrant random home visits by federal agents asking to see their legally obtained items.

 

[GunRelated]

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

Why, of course

 

[Mr Smooth]

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.

I get your drift but in the real world with democracy laws do change to fit the current society thinking. The constitution allows it. As you mentioned the laws will in the future modify rights via a new law. Only people who abide by the new law will be law abiding citizens then. Citizens vote here for those who make the laws, we don't have a king or dictator. So if people make up society, society makes the laws. BTW society can remove laws too!

I like the second amendment, I think it is there to protect society from a tyrannical government. If the army has machine guns, machine guns should be legal for society. Same for everything the army or law enforcement has. After all the amendment is there, in my opinion, to protect society from tyrannical government. Equal armament is the only way to go. But alas society does not see it my way. Is it an infringement, maybe, but it is the current thinking of our society via the laws they made.

 

[Magdump]

Why, of course

Oh I like that…

 

[GunRelated]

I get your drift but in the real world with democracy laws do change to fit the current society thinking. The constitution allows it. As you mentioned the laws will in the future modify rights via a new law. Only people who abide by the new law will be law abiding citizens then. Citizens vote here for those who make the laws, we don't have a king or dictator. So if people make up society, society makes the laws. BTW society can remove laws too!

I like the second amendment, I think it is there to protect society from a tyrannical government. If the army has machine guns, machine guns should be legal for society. Same for everything the army or law enforcement has. After all the amendment is there, in my opinion, to protect society from tyrannical government. Equal armament is the only way to go. But alas society does not see it my way. Is it an infringement, maybe, but it is the current thinking of our society via the laws they made.

I found your flag. I don't think they had this one in their memo, so you should be good.

 

[Mr Smooth]

I found your flag. I don't think they had this one in their memo, so you should be good.

I like the snake it reminds me of someone

 

[Magdump]

I get your drift but in the real world with democracy laws do change to fit the current society thinking. The constitution allows it. As you mentioned the laws will in the future modify rights via a new law. Only people who abide by the new law will be law abiding citizens then. Citizens vote here for those who make the laws, we don't have a king or dictator. So if people make up society, society makes the laws. BTW society can remove laws too!

I like the second amendment, I think it is there to protect society from a tyrannical government. If the army has machine guns, machine guns should be legal for society. Same for everything the army or law enforcement has. After all the amendment is there, in my opinion, to protect society from tyrannical government. Equal armament is the only way to go. But alas society does not see it my way. Is it an infringement, maybe, but it is the current thinking of our society via the laws they made.

You’re right, kind of. We don’t have a dictator run country, we have an oligarchy. Not very much different when you think about it. Definitely not a country run by society. Society has definitely been allowed to run amok, when led by the propaganda machine, where society is also led to believe the majority agrees with the oligarchs. We no longer live in a republic and there is no real democracy, there is however an over abundance of bureaucracy, among other worrisome things.

Of all the amendments to our constitution, that grant us rights and freedoms and protection and guidance, think about the ones that would be the thorn in the side of a tyrannical government. 1: Freedom of speech, to assemble and redress the government and shout from the rooftops, by whatever media available, your grievances.
2: the right to own and bring arms to bear, to fight off any tyrant or tyrants who would threaten any of our rights and freedoms.
4: the right to be secure in your person, home, papers and effects without worrying about anyone forcing anything on you or searching/seizing your property without probable cause and a warrant.
And hopefully you know the rest.
Now think about the amendments that are constantly being tested or coming under attack. Why is that? Why would our government want to stomp on those rights? Why would they treat us wrongly for standing up for those rights? What makes them think they are here to govern the people? Do you believe that is the purpose of the government? To govern the people? What would happen if just one of these amendments was struck down? And who would wish for such a thing?
Just food for thought…

 

[Magdump]

I found your flag. I don't think they had this one in their memo, so you should be good.

Oh my God, choked on my popcorn..
ROFL

 

[Mr Smooth]

You’re right, kind of. We don’t have a dictator run country, we have an oligarchy. Not very much different when you think about it. Definitely not a country run by society. Society has definitely been allowed to run amok, when led by the propaganda machine, where society is also led to believe the majority agrees with the oligarchs. We no longer live in a republic and there is no real democracy, there is however an over abundance of bureaucracy, among other worrisome things.

Of all the amendments to our constitution, that grant us rights and freedoms and protection and guidance, think about the ones that would be the thorn in the side of a tyrannical government. 1: Freedom of speech, to assemble and redress the government and shout from the rooftops, by whatever media available, your grievances.
2: the right to own and bring arms to bear, to fight off any tyrant or tyrants who would threaten any of our rights and freedoms.
4: the right to be secure in your person, home, papers and effects without worrying about anyone forcing anything on you or searching/seizing your property without probable cause and a warrant.
And hopefully you know the rest.
Now think about the amendments that are constantly being tested or coming under attack. Why is that? Why would our government want to stomp on those rights? Why would they treat us wrongly for standing up for those rights? What makes them think they are here to govern the people? Do you believe that is the purpose of the government? To govern the people? What would happen if just one of these amendments was struck down? And who would wish for such a thing?
Just food for thought…

I like your thoughts but, are you giving up on using our vote to let the "Government " know where we believe they are wrong or right? I am not, I vote, contact my representatives and senators regarding my desires, and I contribute to support representatives i believe support my desires even if they aren't my representative. What other choice do you have to make change happen? If you know of a better way to make changes to "our" government i would love to hear it.

 

[GunRelated]

I like your thoughts but, are you giving up on using our vote to let the "Government " know where we believe they are wrong or right? I am not, I vote, contact my representatives and senators regarding my desires, and I contribute to support representatives i believe support my desires even if they aren't my representative. What other choice do you have to make change happen? If you know of a better way to make changes to "our" government i would love to hear it.

Most votes in presidential history.

 

[Mr Smooth]

Most votes in presidential history.

So it looks like you've gone belly up and are willing to take whatever comes your way. Guess you do not really have a right to complain, just let it happen

 

[AustinBR]

I get your drift but in the real world with democracy laws do change to fit the current society thinking. The constitution allows it. As you mentioned the laws will in the future modify rights via a new law. Only people who abide by the new law will be law abiding citizens then. Citizens vote here for those who make the laws, we don't have a king or dictator. So if people make up society, society makes the laws. BTW society can remove laws too!

I like the second amendment, I think it is there to protect society from a tyrannical government. If the army has machine guns, machine guns should be legal for society. Same for everything the army or law enforcement has. After all the amendment is there, in my opinion, to protect society from tyrannical government. Equal armament is the only way to go. But alas society does not see it my way. Is it an infringement, maybe, but it is the current thinking of our society via the laws they made.

Should Elon Musk be legally allowed to purchase and maintain nuclear weapons if he so chooses?

 

[GunRelated]

So it looks like you've gone belly up and are willing to take whatever comes your way. Guess you do not really have a right to complain, just let it happen

With that statement, I gather you also know the numbers aren't true. If you know this, what makes you think that you can vote your way out?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answer, but at least I know where I stand.

 

[Mr Smooth]

With that statement, I gather you also know the numbers aren't true. If you know this, what makes you think that you can vote your way out?
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answer, but at least I know where I stand.

I guess that's one less vote for gun rights as well as other issues, maybe we will get slaughtered rather than at least have enough of a showing to get a word in.

Just thinking out loud, maybe it was Trump that caused the loss of the Presidency. A lot of people hate him, even Republicans

 

[Mr Smooth]

Should Elon Musk be legally allowed to purchase and maintain nuclear weapons if he so chooses?

I would say no since I believe we, the human race, should not wipe ourselves out with nuclear war. Better to use conventional weapons where someone will be left standing and a bit more expensive and painful. Oppenheimer did say once the genie is out you can't put him back but as a race/planet we should try.

 

[GunRelated]

I guess that's one less vote for gun rights as well as other issues, maybe we will get slaughtered rather than at least have enough of a showing to get a word in.

Just thinking out loud, maybe it was Trump that caused the loss of the Presidency. A lot of people hate him, even Republicans

I honestly have not decided whether I will participate in voting outside of local ballots. I am only human, I have the same urge because "it's the only thing we can do", maybe my disdain for the corrupt system will overpower that.

Saying that Trump caused the loss is saying that the votes that took place were genuine, and we both know that isn't the case. He may have played his role and took the L, or maybe he (we) actually got robbed, but he certainly didn't actually lose to Biden. Either way, the people lost in the end.

 

[Mr Smooth]

I honestly have not decided whether I will participate in voting outside of local ballots. I am only human, I have the same urge because "it's the only thing we can do", maybe my disdain for the corrupt system will overpower that.

Saying that Trump caused the loss is saying that the votes that took place were genuine, and we both know that isn't the case. He may have played his role and took the L, or maybe he (we) actually got robbed, but he certainly didn't actually lose to Biden. Either way, the people lost in the end.

I get your opinion, I just believe he lost and the votes were valid. You have to produce a lot of conspiracies to make it work for Trump to win. About 60 courts called bs on trump, one court said Trump was right but, it wasn't on count. All courts not just democratic run courts, even the Conservative Supreme Court ruled bs on Trump. The Republicans who won their seats in swing states weren't real big on stating their votes were bs. So this is why I believe he lost the Republicans the presidency.

 

[AustinBR]

I would say no since I believe we, the human race, should not wipe ourselves out with nuclear war. Better to use conventional weapons where someone will be left standing and a bit more expensive and painful. Oppenheimer did say once the genie is out you can't put him back but as a race/planet we should try.

And there lies the problem - a line has to be drawn on what the public can have vs what the government can have. Where we draw the line is the debate.

Above you said, "I like the second amendment, I think it is there to protect society from a tyrannical government. If the army has machine guns, machine guns should be legal for society. Same for everything the army or law enforcement has. After all the amendment is there, in my opinion, to protect society from tyrannical government. Equal armament is the only way to go. But alas society does not see it my way. Is it an infringement, maybe, but it is the current thinking of our society via the laws they made."

I'm an admin on a gun forum. Obviously I am very, very pro-2A. But that being said, I don't want my neighbors to have access to tanks, fighter jets, RPGs, or the likes. I'm very okay with just our military having them.

Besides, at the end of the day, if the US Military had a real reason to come after civilians, we the people would have no chance. Sure, some could put up a fight, but once people started getting murdered by drones, the general populace would quickly give up.

 

[GunRelated]

I'm an admin on a gun forum. Obviously I am very, very pro-2A. But that being said, I don't want my neighbors to have access to tanks, fighter jets, RPGs, or the likes. I'm very okay with just our military having them.

Besides, at the end of the day, if the US Military had a real reason to come after civilians, we the people would have no chance. Sure, some could put up a fight, but once people started getting murdered by drones, the general populace would quickly give up.

Being an admin, or a member on a gun forum does not automatically make you very, very pro-2A, your beliefs do, and your beliefs do not align with someone who is very, very pro-2A

 

[Mr Smooth]

And there lies the problem - a line has to be drawn on what the public can have vs what the government can have. Where we draw the line is the debate.

Above you said, "I like the second amendment, I think it is there to protect society from a tyrannical government. If the army has machine guns, machine guns should be legal for society. Same for everything the army or law enforcement has. After all the amendment is there, in my opinion, to protect society from tyrannical government. Equal armament is the only way to go. But alas society does not see it my way. Is it an infringement, maybe, but it is the current thinking of our society via the laws they made."

I'm an admin on a gun forum. Obviously I am very, very pro-2A. But that being said, I don't want my neighbors to have access to tanks, fighter jets, RPGs, or the likes. I'm very okay with just our military having them.

Besides, at the end of the day, if the US Military had a real reason to come after civilians, we the people would have no chance. Sure, some could put up a fight, but once people started getting murdered by drones, the general populace would quickly give up.

I get what you say but I think the line can be pushed in our favor towards less restrictions. What is the problem with machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors and weapon conversion kits. Do a basic background check and let them be available. Its not like there tanks, fighter jets, RPGs or the likes. They just happen to be small arms and what is the problem with small arms?