"What Scares Elitists? Civilians Own 70 Times More Guns Than U.S. Police and Military Combined"

Guns are not the only thing that prevents tyranny, it is simply one more check on the government. When you add them all up they work in concert with each other. And we don't live with a tyrannical government do we?

 

Ok. So now you contradict yourself. (Before: "They should *not* be able to be abrogated based on the whim of a nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrat") In any case, my intention was to show that the argument was nonsense and irrelevant in this discussion. Here you made it easier for me.

Great! That was my point. So we agree!

Thanks.

 

no, I'm saying rifles would not be effective against tanks

 

winter in Russia is different than winter in Germany, you are also assuming the citizens will all be against the government

 

Pretty much like you strip them of their constitutional right to fly from one state to another despite the fact that they haven't done anything wrong

See? It wasn't as complicated as you thought.

 

Please refer to my response to the first quote in the following post.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...litary-combined.513690/page-6#post-1067962118

Which is useless if not all sellers are required to check.

Then let's create safeguards and guidelines.

 

How effective would tanks be if their armaments can be disabled by conventional small arms fire? What good is a machine gun if even a shot from a hunting rifle to its receiver can disable it? What good is the main cannon against individuals who can easily maneuver out of its way?

What percentage of the united states public would support the federal government if news got out that it was openly killing its own people on their own soil, in their own homes? Already the news is showing violent outrage whenever a black individual is killed by a law enforcement officer, even if the killing was justified.

Except for the fact that there is no constitutional right to fly, or to travel by motor vehicle in general. Instead that is a privilege granted by government upon meeting certain requirements.

It is just as useless if the firearms were stolen from their rightful owners, which is far from being an uncommon occurrence in the united states.

Beyond such, background checks are rendered useless through a straw purchase being performed. What is proposed to be done about that?

 

Or I could live here and do what I can to change the law by convincing reasonable and smart people that changing the laws is the reasonable thing to do. This will only work with reasonable and smart people, though.

 

One may be willing to die for their cause. However few are willing to have their families and loved ones slaughtered in response for that same cause.

 

Republicans in Congress seem to have come up with some reason. Not sure if that reason is that it would harm the bottom line of gun manufacturers, or if it's that it would reduce the number of members that could join the NRA, or something like that.... But whatever the reason is, they have, they have managed to block passage of laws, such as the one that would require a background check before selling a gun.

Are you saying that you believe gun laws caused these attacks? Uhmmm.. You might want to read up a bit on the history of European countries that cause this to be more likely in France than in the U.S.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but it's a great argument in favor of gun control.

That's extremely dishonest on your part. You edited my question by cutting it in half. Only reason to do that would seem to be that you can't answer it.

Here is may question again. If you are honest, you will not separate the following paragraph. It's one inseparable question.

Please provide the legislation in California that makes it a felony if somebody sells guns without a proper background check to terror suspects and psychopaths, and makes it "Accessory to murder" (or something similar) if the gun is used in a murder.

And show only the part that illustrates that. All this crap about "paperwork" and ID is just a dishonest smokescreen

Now. Try again.

 

As it has already been explained, because such laws are unenforceable. If you believe otherwise, explain how you believe that they can be enforced. Federally licensed firearm dealers have a store front, operating from a fixed location, and a documented inventory of what firearms they have on hand that can be searched at any time by the ATF. Their wrongdoing can actually be found out. Private individuals, to the contrary, do not have such requirements to follow and abide by.

To the contrary, it is being asked why their restrictions have failed at preventing terrorists from acquiring prohibited weapons.

Pray tell why is that, when the united states has more firearms available than any other nation?

To the contrary, it is being pointed out that the saturation level has exceeded critical mass. The point of no return has already been passed, and nothing can be done about it. There are simply too many firearms already in existence in the united states for the number to be reduced to any meaningful degree. Even if the physically impossible could be done, and ninety nine percent of all firearms could be located, confiscated, and destroyed, the remaining one percent would still be far more than the numbers any other nation in the world has to contend with.

The relevant part of the question was addressed. You asked for the citation of the law, you were given it. The obsessive, bordering on fetishistic, fixation exclusively on those classified by yourself as "psychopaths and terror suspects" adds nothing construction to the discussion, and is not in need of being addressed when there are already laws regulating the private transfer of firearms in all circumstances, without exception.

Is there truly a need to codify into law that the restriction that exist on the selling of firearms applies to specific groups of individual? Does the prohibition which applies across the board, need to be spelled out in specifically what circumstances it covers?

The citation was already given, showing that absolutely all private sales of firearms have to be done through a federally licensed firearms dealer, and a background check must be performed prior to the sale being allowed to proceed. There are no exceptions to this requirement. Selling a firearm in any other fashion in a felony offense, with conviction resulting in a loss of second amendment rights for the duration of the life of the convicted individual. If it applies under all circumstances, then it applies to those suspected of being terrorists, and those who may be psychopaths but have yet to be adjudicated in a court of law.

Pray tell what is so difficult to understand about such?

 

______
Isn't that great America the land where you can speak freely if your a Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats, but not f you're a conservative Christian. What one person believes is reasonable, others believe are encroachments on their inalienable Liberty and Freedoms.

 

I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

Except we totally disagree on how psychopaths should have their natural rights abrogated!

 

Whenever evidence is given against the premise of the 2A, you guys do your magic hand-waving.

 

It depends on how you define tyranny, which was the closing point of my earlier post. In the modern age, tyranny is invisible. There won't be troops on the streets because the tyrant will have no need for it.

 

Weather below about 60defF has the same requirements for keeping warm. Coats, blankets, insulated boots, warm shelter, etc. Otherwise hypothermia will set in. Which is what happened to both Germany and the French.

If it gets so bad that the military is posted across the nation to control the population, requiring the imposition of martial law by the President, the majority of the population *will* be against the government. The left left-coast and the left right-coast may not be but the rest of the country will be!

 

It isn't hard to understand - unless you live in an alternate universe created from willful ignorance!

 

I would define it as the individual having no freedom of choice.

 

I define tryanny as a reduction of individual rights, which is what can happen when the state has knowledge. It's been said that the true currency in DC isn't money but knowledge. If you know something about someone you shouldn't, this gives you power. It has been argued by some thinkers that, under a true techno-tyranny, the people would be largely unaware of the fact, which is a tyrant's ideal scenario anyway.

 

Well we disagree on the definition obviously but that's ok.

 

______
Lessons may be learned from the Tiananmen Uprising in a totalitarian society Liberty and Freedom have no place and if the people lose as they did in the following 1989 reprisals by the gov't can be drastic.

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 ... in response to an uprising in Benghazi against his rule, held up China's 1989 military assault on Tiananmen Square as an example ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Political lessons of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in ...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/05/tian-j05.html
Jun 05, 2017 · Political lessons of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China ... Bloody reprisals against students ... Square movement and associated protests, ...

 

Funny. Do you really suppose that every person is China made the decision to "believe in communism"? Or do you suppose that it was forced on them, and as they had been disarmed, were then unable to resist it? This generalization of yours is at least as gratuitous as your earlier assumption about potential crime and our ability to snuff it out before the crime is committed..

As for the UK, Germany, and Japan. I suppose for you that your superficiality in your attribution should be expected. Lacking any additional analysis as to why culturally the citizens of these populations may be less likely to exhibit criminality seems lost in the lack of historical context you are unaware of. But don't let that stop you.

 

Go after the ammo. Look at how many people were losing their poo at a shortage of 22 longs a couple years ago.

 

That's an option I suppose but most gun owners I know have ample supplies of ammo, not to fight a war or anything but they usually have enough on hand for whatever.

I'm fairly confident that going after ammo would only affect new gun purchases.

 

Sure, but they have some if they never use their firearm and those aren't the people who would be the focus of the push. I don't have a firearm in my house but I had a bazillion 22 bullets, longs and shorts, from where I cleaned out my dad's house after he died. I passed the guns onto one of my brothers but he didn't take the ammo and forgot I had them. When I reminded him of that when we were discussing something during the great shortage, by dark I had all these relatives wanting 22's from me because they couldn't find them anywhere and had been looking for months. At least I finally got rid of those as well as boxes of shotgun shells I had no use for. Now, if I could get them to take some of his other stuff clogging up my outbuilding, it would be swell.