Why so much hate on helpful laws?

[titsonritz]

Defenestration is always fun too... and it's *serious* when the window you toss 'em out of is third-floor or higher.

...closed and double paned.

 

[U8395279]

KILL! KILL! KILL THIS THREAD!!

KILL IT!

 

[Diamondback]

Kill It With Fire? LOL

 

[Boboclown]

Something tells me I missed a very entertaining thread...

 

[Dave Workman]

I see this comment on social media all the time: "Obama doesn't want to take your guns - etc., etc., etc."

My response: "If he doesn't want my guns, then why does he want the serial number, make/model, and type of gun? What does the serial number of a gun have to do with my passing a background check? I can either pass the background check or I can't - they serial number, make/model, etc., has nothing to do with whether I can pass the check or not."

Not to defend Obama, or the original poster, the information you are upset about was being asked on the 4473 long before Obama took office.
As to the original OP...the mental health thing that Inslee tried to exploit was actually a result of very hard work done in very quiet meetings between mental health professionals and gun rights professionals. The anti-gun bunch really wasn't involved. Neither was Inslee's office.

As for the rest, you guys make up your own minds.

 

[The Heretic]

I was referring to the background check specifically.

As I said, you are either legally qualified to buy a firearm or you are not. The serial #, make/model/type of the firearm has nothing to do with that fact.

The collection of the serial number, whether via a 4473 or other form, is just a means to collect that information that wasn't being collected before in "private" transfers. The reason why? To track who has what firearm.

Now, with a few exceptions (e.g., transfers to family members), as firearms are bought and sold, more and more firearms will get into the "system" and the gov. will have more complete data about who has what.

Why would the gov. want to know that?

The most likely reason?

Eventual restriction and confiscation.

Before the BGC laws, a person had plausible deniability if the gov. came around and wanted to confiscate firearms - a person could say (truthfully or not), that they sold the firearm, and there would most likely be no record of that sale, and no way for the gov. to track it down.

Now that is not possible.

That is my point.

 

[Diamondback]

There is always the PCR option... a gun that never "officially existed" in the first place is one they don't know to look for.

 

[oknow]

 

[The Heretic]

There is always the PCR option... a gun that never "officially existed" in the first place is one they don't know to look for.

There is that.

However - I don't know of any 80% kits for an FN PS90 or a Tavor or such.

Also, the gov. has already raided and taken the customer lists of at least one 80% kit manufacturer that I have heard of, and then there is the NSA - so if you go that route for that reason, you probably want to get the kit in person with cash without ever mentioning your name. Ditto for the upper.

Once you have one firearm that is on paper, they will probably be searching for any others.

For this and other reasons, I buy as few firearms "on paper" as possible. I also don't usually talk online about the firearms I have - with a few exceptions; firearms I bought that were recently bought "on paper".

I hope that confiscation never happens, but to a limited degree it already is.

 

[smoothbore]

Actually every gun law on the books should be rescinded. Law abiding citizens are no threat. Law breakers could care less about a law.

We have laws on the books to cover every type of crime invented by man.A gun is simply a tool. Just as a hammer or a screw driver. Just a tool ! Nothing more. The laws forced on honest gun owners is about CONTROL! That is the one and only reason for gun laws.
Even the language of gun laws is ridiculous. For instance the term "ASSAULT WEAPON"
Any gun or knife or tool if used against another person, is an assault weapon. In the 1700's in the US, the assault weapon was a Brown Bess.Or at least it was when used to shoot another person.We still have a thing called the Second Amendment, and we all should demand our leaders to honor it. Just the way i see it, and I'm right.

 

[The Heretic]

I would accept a few gun laws regarding those people who have proven that they can't be trusted with a firearm; i.e., those who commit violent crimes with firearms, possibly those who have, using a firearm, threatened someone. That kind of thing.

Other than that, yes, law abiding persons should be allowed to own and carry firearms without legal restrictions. The only laws that I would advocate in that regard, would be the ones that protect that right, prohibiting laws infringing on that right.

Oh wait - isn't there this law called the Second Amendment??

Yes - it is a law.

 

[BillGabby1]

I am just curious as why there is so much hate on laws that will only help, don't play in to any fear mongering tactics, and will create a future that firearms are looked upon in a more positive light than what people see from the NRA now (such as this

) and other groups that are so against any change or progress to the point of dogmatism and fear mongering. Why can we not represent ourselves like the gun owners we actually are, kind, responsible, law abiding and non aggressive individuals who can approach an issue with confidence and poise.

Now, I did not mean to offend anyone by this post, but I just wanted to shed light on this issue because of how it seems there are groups that do not represent what most gun owners believe, but just the extreme points and fear creating tactics. I have not been overly aggressive, insulting or vulgar toward anyone, and I will ask that if anyone responds to my question and discussion, please treat me with the same professionalism and kindness that I have tried approach everyone here with. Thanks for your time and I hope you guys have a fantastic 2016.[/QUOTE]



Young feller your words are an insult to our intelligence, your whole purpose here is to foment a harsh response from us. I will answer your liberal dogma with just this. What part of the second amendment don't you understand. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. That is specific language and the framers of our constitution knew the English language quite well.
Shall not doesn't mean "except" when The president thinks he knows better, it doesn't mean may not be infringed except under special circumstances which the government might trump up, (there's that name again).
It means under no circumstance will it be infringed.
Here is the meaning of that word that we don't use very often these days. I got it just by Googling the word.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach;More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with

• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
  "his legal rights were being infringed"
  synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on.

So please don't feed us your left-wing Pablum and expect us to swallow it because it smells and tastes like BS to us who fear for our rights and our children's rights and grand children's ETC! Every time you let the government have a little control of your life, they want more, and then even more, they are like gluttons who just cant stop eating until they have eaten every thing up completely. All you have to do is watch what happens for even a short time. With your eyes and your mind wide open and you will learn that what I'm saying is true.
Every horrific thing that happens and gets big air time from the media, gives them fuel to demand more control, just watch then come back and apologize to the good folks here in this forum for insulting them with your balderdash and baloney.
End of rant,
Gabby

 

[PaulB47]

I would accept a few gun laws regarding those people who have proven that they can't be trusted with a firearm; i.e., those who commit violent crimes with firearms, possibly those who have, using a firearm, threatened someone. That kind of thing.

Camel's nose in the tent.

Where do people get this idea that government will stop at the point THEY think is reasonable? When has that ever happened?

And these "few gun laws" you accept, do you think they will do any good? In a nation with 300 million guns, there is always an adequate supply for the most violent people to acquire.

I have a hard time understanding how anybody can be so fearful of attack by "those people", that in a vain attempt to disarm them, he's willing to give the bloodiest agency in human history the tools needed to enslave himself and everybody else.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I was referring to the background check specifically.

As I said, you are either legally qualified to buy a firearm or you are not. The serial #, make/model/type of the firearm has nothing to do with that fact.

The collection of the serial number, whether via a 4473 or other form, is just a means to collect that information that wasn't being collected before in "private" transfers. The reason why? To track who has what firearm.

Now, with a few exceptions (e.g., transfers to family members), as firearms are bought and sold, more and more firearms will get into the "system" and the gov. will have more complete data about who has what.

Why would the gov. want to know that?

The most likely reason?

Eventual restriction and confiscation.

Before the BGC laws, a person had plausible deniability if the gov. came around and wanted to confiscate firearms - a person could say (truthfully or not), that they sold the firearm, and there would most likely be no record of that sale, and no way for the gov. to track it down.

Now that is not possible.

That is my point.

+1 to all of this. ^^^
Very happy I lost all my firearms in a boating accident. Pretty much down to just my carry pistol now. It sure is a shame.

 

[Lilhigbee]

I have refrained from posting here seriously because of the troll-like nature of the OP. However, enough of the good people here have responded to give the thread a legitimacy that the OP never had.
The OP is presuming facts not in evidence;
A) That members here hate helpful gun laws. To the contrary, most of the members here would support helpful gun laws, such as national recognition of the Right To Carry.
B) That the laws they are talking about are actually helpful. Obviously they may be helpful to the tyrants trying to gain control, but that is hardly a reason for us to consider them helpful. Nowhere in the history of the world will you find evidence of such laws being helpful to the people subjected to them.
C) That the laws are somehow lawful. Remember that thing called the Constitution?? That "Supreme Law of the Land" thing?? That part about "Shall Not Be Infringed"?? Yes, the Supreme Court is making a mockery of it, but that does not make it right.
D)
That background checks and mental health issues go hand-in-hand. It would be easy to increase funding for mental health treatment without further restricting on gun owners. Why are they tied together??
E) That background checks don't hurt the right or ease of buying or owning guns. So much BS there I don't know where to start!!

I could go on, but I realize I have already wasted more time than the OP warrants.

 

[x2ndxall]

C'mon guys. How can we coexist with all this hate? All this lack of helpful laws? All these dang guns running around killing people?
Try to keep an open mind here and let the words of highly educated, sophisticated liberals sink in for a bit. They know what's best for all of us. Just ask them. After all, they attend all the most best schools and stuff.
We just need to relax our simple minds and allow them to instill their self righteous ideology.

Or no? Idk, should we maybe just continue to rely on facts? Or is that just more right-wing craziness?

 

[Martini_Up]

<yawn> still feeding the troll that came and went like a fart in the wind?

 

[x2ndxall]

<yawn> still feeding the troll that came and went like a fart in the wind?

Considered that myself and was bugged that it kept going. But in reality, can a troll eat if it's not at the table?

 

[titsonritz]

Young feller your words are an insult to our intelligence, your whole purpose here is to foment a harsh response from us. I will answer your liberal dogma with just this. What part of the second amendment don't you understand. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. That is specific language and the framers of our constitution knew the English language quite well.
Shall not doesn't mean "except" when The president thinks he knows better, it doesn't mean may not be infringed except under special circumstances which the government might trump up, (there's that name again).
It means under no circumstance will it be infringed.
Here is the meaning of that word that we don't use very often these days. I got it just by Googling the word.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach;More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with

• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
  "his legal rights were being infringed"
  synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on.

So please don't feed us your left-wing Pablum and expect us to swallow it because it smells and tastes like BS to us who fear for our rights and our children's rights and grand children's ETC! Every time you let the government have a little control of your life, they want more, and then even more, they are like gluttons who just cant stop eating until they have eaten every thing up completely. All you have to do is watch what happens for even a short time. With your eyes and your mind wide open and you will learn that what I'm saying is true.
Every horrific thing that happens and gets big air time from the media, gives them fuel to demand more control, just watch then come back and apologize to the good folks here in this forum for insulting them with your balderdash and baloney.
End of rant,
Gabby

"foment", "balderdash", goods words...

 

[Explorer1]

My response can be summed up in one word - ABUSE.

Just look at the IRS scandal with conservative organizations and the present actions by the President against those who are receiving VA and SS benefits if you need examples.