Tyranny of the ATF

[Suppressed Poet]

New rule and definition of who is a firearms dealer was published yesterday. It’s purposely ambiguous, but selling your own personal property to a private individual without a license could and may very well be considered a felony & land you in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison. This will also lead us to a national gun registry as it’s the only real way they can enforce this law.

I’m writing letters to my State representative & Senator (fuck you John Cornyn you treacherous rhino SOB).

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/justice-department-proposes-new-regulation-update-definition-engaged-business-firearms


Justice Department Proposes New Regulation to Update Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Firearms Dealer
Proposed Rule Seeks to Implement Provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and Provide Clarity on Who Must Obtain a License and Run Background Checks
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced it has submitted to the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking that would clarify the circumstances in which a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a license and run background checks. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), enacted June 25, 2022, expanded the definition of engaging in the business of firearms dealing to cover all persons who devote time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominately earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and sale of firearms. On March 14, President Biden issued Executive Order 14092, which, among other things, directs the Attorney General to develop and implement a plan to clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a federal firearms license. Today’s proposed rule would amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulations by, among other things, conforming ATF’s regulations to the new BSCA definition and further clarifying the conduct that presumptively requires a license under that revised definition.

“The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was passed by Congress to reduce gun violence, including by expanding the background checks that keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This proposed rule implements Congress’s mandate to expand the definition of who must obtain a license and conduct a background check before selling firearms.”

“An increasing number of individuals engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit have chosen not to register as federal firearms licensees, as required by law,” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. “Instead, they have sought to make money through the off-book, illicit sale of firearms. These activities undermine the law, endanger public safety, create significant burdens on law enforcement, and are unfair to the many licensed dealers who make considerable efforts to follow the law. The Gun Control Act’s exceptions to the license requirement exist to allow all law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights – not to facilitate the intentional evasion of the background-check system. This new proposed rule would clarify the circumstances in which a person is ‘engaged in the business’ of dealing in firearms, and thus required to obtain a license and follow the laws Congress has established for firearms dealers.”

Federally licensed firearms dealers are critical partners to federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement in our shared goal of promoting public safety. They help keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons by running background checks on potential purchasers; ensure that crime guns can be traced back to their first retail purchaser by keeping records of transactions; and facilitate safe storage of firearms by providing child-safety locks with every transferred handgun and offering customers other secure gun storage options. Unlicensed dealing, however, undermines these public-safety features – which is why Congress has long prohibited engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license.

To increase compliance with the statutes Congress has enacted, the proposed rule identifies examples of conduct that would, in certain circumstances, be presumed to qualify as engaging in the business of dealing in firearms and thus to require a federal firearms license. And, in addition to implementing the revised statutory definition discussed above, the proposed rule would help to clarify the circumstances in which a license is (or is not) required by, among other things, adding a definition of “personal firearms collection” to ensure that genuine hobbyists and collectors may enhance and liquidate their collections without fear of violating the law. The proposed rule would also provide valuable guidance to the community of federal firearms licensees by addressing the lawful ways in which former licensees may liquidate business inventory upon termination of their license and clarifying how a licensee can lawfully transfer a firearm to another licensee.

Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, the public will have 90 days to submit comments. The notice of proposed rulemaking submitted by the Department can be viewed on the Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms webpage.

Learn more about the rulemaking process.

###

[Shaps]

You think it's all a joke... until it's to late.

Look at what's happened in just 10 years... give it another 10.

The "Rights" enshrined in our Founding documents no longer matter... those in power have already decided that... and they've gotten people to give up those rights, based upon their "feelings".

What's hilarious is, the same insane Leftists that support this type of shit... think they're immune from it... not understanding they're just idiot pawns that will suffer along with the rest.

[Suppressed Poet]

You think it's all a joke... until it's to late.

Look at what's happened in just 10 years... give it another 10.

The "Rights" enshrined in our Founding documents no longer matter... those in power have already decided that... and they've gotten people to give up those rights, based upon their "feelings".

What's hilarious is, the same insane Leftists that support this type of shit... think they're immune from it... not understanding they're just idiot pawns that will suffer along with the rest.

Yep.

The Islamic Republic of Iran & People’s Republic of China have written in their constitution guarantees of freedom of assembly, speech, religion, press, and petitioning of the government very similarly to our first amendment. You know what right they don’t have in their constitution though? Take a wild guess.

[Parkbandit]

I saw the headline and thought it said "Tranny at the ATF" and was not shocked at all.

[Seran]

New rule and definition of who is a firearms dealer was published yesterday. It’s purposely ambiguous, but selling your own personal property to a private individual without a license could and may very well be considered a felony & land you in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison. This will also lead us to a national gun registry as it’s the only real way they can enforce this law.

I’m writing letters to my State representative & Senator (fuck you John Cornyn you treacherous rhino SOB).

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/justice-department-proposes-new-regulation-update-definition-engaged-business-firearms

It's almost as if the government of the United States is looking to enforce the laws that it passes. Shocker!

[ClydeR]

New rule and definition of who is a firearms dealer was published yesterday. It’s purposely ambiguous, but selling your own personal property to a private individual without a license could and may very well be considered a felony & land you in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison.




The proposed new definition of "dealer" is quoted below. I don't know enough about the business of being a gun dealer to recognize the problem areas in the definition. What part of it is ambiguous? It seems unambiguously comprehensive. In addition to writing to your member of Congress, shouldn't you write to the ATF during the 90-day comment period, as they requested, so that they can address any problems with the proposed rule before it is finalized?


Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they may be conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; at one’s home; by mail order; over the Internet; through the use of other electronic means (e.g., an online broker, online auction, text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises.

More... (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/rulemaking/atf-eib-nprm-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download)

There's a separate too-long-to-quote definition of "engaged in the business." It all starts on page 96 of the above linked document.

[Shaps]

It's almost as if the government of the United States is looking to enforce the laws that it passes. Shocker!

It is when you consider their handling of Immigration Laws... and quite a few others.

[Parkbandit]

It's almost as if the government of the United States is looking to enforce the laws that it passes. Shocker!

What?

There is a law on the books, then the ATF CHANGED THE WAY THAT LAW IS NOW DEFINED.

How do you go through life and not understand the most basic of concepts?

[Suppressed Poet]

The proposed new definition of "dealer" is quoted below. I don't know enough about the business of being a gun dealer to recognize the problem areas in the definition. What part of it is ambiguous? It seems unambiguously comprehensive. In addition to writing to your member of Congress, shouldn't you write to the ATF during the 90-day comment period, as they requested, so that they can address any problems with the proposed rule before it is finalized?



There's a separate too-long-to-quote definition of "engaged in the business." It all starts on page 96 of the above linked document.

I can read.

If a Gemstone IV player sells an item from Ebon’s Gate a few years back and happens to make a profit since the item is more rare/valuable today, is that person a Gemstone IV dealer?

I have lots of guns. Many of those guns become increasingly more valuable over time. If I choose to sell one to a private individual that I do not know to be a felon, I shouldn’t be troubled with registering as a FFL. Instead, me as an example and a law abiding citizen, could now be charged with a felony for selling a gun to my neighbor. It’s important to understand Congress didn’t make or change the law. The ATF simply made a new rule and new definitions. You don’t have to be into guns to understand why that is wrong & concerning.

Yes I will be writing to the ATF as well. It’s a formality & spoiler alert: they don’t care nor will they change their mind. It’s like writing to the Soviet Gestapo.

[Shaps]

I can read.

If a Gemstone IV player sells an item from Ebon’s Gate a few years back and happens to make a profit since the item is more rare/valuable today, is that person a Gemstone IV dealer?

I have lots of guns. Many of those guns become increasingly more valuable over time. If I choose to sell one to a private individual that I do not know to be a felon, I shouldn’t be troubled with registering as a FFL. Instead, me as an example and a law abiding citizen, could now be charged with a felony for selling a gun to my neighbor. It’s important to understand Congress didn’t make or change the law. The ATF simply made a new rule and new definitions. You don’t have to be into guns to understand why that is wrong & concerning.

Yes I will be writing to the ATF as well. It’s a formality & spoiler alert: they don’t care nor will they change their mind. It’s like writing to the Soviet Gestapo.

Best thing to do is not write anyone... as it will put you on their radar. Best practice is... don't freely offer your name up to be put on a list. Just some friendly advice... Because if you think your rights, and your representatives, still work for you... you'd be wrong.

[Methais]

It's almost as if the government of the United States is looking to enforce the laws that it passes. Shocker!

Stop being a bootlicker

[Seran]

I can read.

If a Gemstone IV player sells an item from Ebon’s Gate a few years back and happens to make a profit since the item is more rare/valuable today, is that person a Gemstone IV dealer?

I have lots of guns. Many of those guns become increasingly more valuable over time. If I choose to sell one to a private individual that I do not know to be a felon, I shouldn’t be troubled with registering as a FFL. Instead, me as an example and a law abiding citizen, could now be charged with a felony for selling a gun to my neighbor. It’s important to understand Congress didn’t make or change the law. The ATF simply made a new rule and new definitions. You don’t have to be into guns to understand why that is wrong & concerning.

Yes I will be writing to the ATF as well. It’s a formality & spoiler alert: they don’t care nor will they change their mind. It’s like writing to the Soviet Gestapo.

Ignorance is not an affirmative defense against breaking the law, it never has been. You seem to be implying through your argument that there is additional value to be had through an anonymous transaction, we'll set aside how morally questionable that is providing a deadly weapon to a potential felon for increase profit. You run the risk of being charged with a felony crime for NOT registering yourself as a dealer and doing the mandated checks required in private arms sales, that you think it is cumbersome and an undue burden. This is also not an affirmative defense. Well regulated is written plaintext into the second amendment, end of debate.

[Parkbandit]

Ignorance is not an affirmative defense against breaking the law, it never has been. You seem to be implying through your argument that there is additional value to be had through an anonymous transaction, we'll set aside how morally questionable that is providing a deadly weapon to a potential felon for increase profit. You run the risk of being charged with a felony crime for NOT registering yourself as a dealer and doing the mandated checks required in private arms sales, that you think it is cumbersome and an undue burden. This is also not an affirmative defense. Well regulated is written plaintext into the second amendment, end of debate.

Holy shit.

You do realize that the phrase "Well regulated militia" doesn't not mean the government should impose as many regulations on guns as they can... right?

[Suppressed Poet]

Holy shit.

You do realize that the phrase "Well regulated militia" doesn't not mean the government should impose as many regulations on guns as they can... right?

He doesn’t and refuses to acknowledge the evidence.

[Methais]

Holy shit.

You do realize that the phrase "Well regulated militia" doesn't not mean the government should impose as many regulations on guns as they can... right?

He did say in a thread, I'm pretty sure sometime last year, that well regulated militia = run by the government, and everyone laughed and called him a retard, so he's already batting .000 before he even entered this thread.

[Seran]

Holy shit.

You do realize that the phrase "Well regulated militia" doesn't not mean the government should impose as many regulations on guns as they can... right?


He doesn’t and refuses to acknowledge the evidence.

Evidence of what? It's only your opinion that the government is overstepping it's constitutional mandate. Skyrocketing gun violence by both legally and illegally obtained firearms and your party is fighting against justifiable requirements that arms dealers be registered and also track their sales? If it reduces illegal gun sales by 1% or stops a single gun crime by someone who shouldn't own a firearm? Then you all should be thanking the ATF.

[Suppressed Poet]

Evidence of what?

District of Columbia v. Heller. We’ve talked about this. Regardless of your feelings or opinion on the matter, it is the law of the land. Our own government determined that well regulated militia in the context of the 2nd Amendment means all able bodied men.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/#:~:text=A%20well%20regulated%20Militia%2C%20being ,Arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed.&text=Parker%2C%20478%20F.


Turning back to the prefatory clause, the Supreme Court majority concluded that the term well-regulated militia does not refer to state or congressionally regulated military forces as described in the Constitution’s Militia Clause;19 rather, the Second Amendment’s usage refers to all able-bodied men who are capable of acting in concert for the common defense.20

[Methais]

If it reduces illegal gun sales by 1% or stops a single gun crime by someone who shouldn't own a firearm...

The classic "If it saves even one life then it's worth it!" argument, which in reality means you know your argument sucks and is bullshit and you think playing the emotional retard card somehow makes your argument better.

Since you're a vaccine fanboy and all, how about if not getting vaccinated saves even one life that would have otherwise died from vaccine complications, then it's worth it. Right?

[Seran]

District of Columbia v. Heller. We’ve talked about this. Regardless of your feelings or opinion on the matter, it is the law of the land. Our own government determined that well regulated militia in the context of the 2nd Amendment means all able bodied men.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/#:~:text=A%20well%20regulated%20Militia%2C%20being ,Arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed.&text=Parker%2C%20478%20F.

And the ATF regulates all arms sales in the United States, retail, wholesale, or private. I may be misunderstanding you, but a line from the ruling "the Second Amendment’s usage refers to all able-bodied men who are capable of acting in concert for the common defense." supports the jurisdiction of the ATF to make these rules, so not entirely sure why you're inserting it into the topic.

[Parkbandit]

Evidence of what? It's only your opinion that the government is overstepping it's constitutional mandate. Skyrocketing gun violence by both legally and illegally obtained firearms and your party is fighting against justifiable requirements that arms dealers be registered and also track their sales? If it reduces illegal gun sales by 1% or stops a single gun crime by someone who shouldn't own a firearm? Then you all should be thanking the ATF.

It's not guns.. it's Democrat policies.

If you clean up the messes that Democrats have made out of most of our large cities (who have the strictest gun laws in the country) our "skyrocketing gun violence" would disappear.

[Parkbandit]

I may be misunderstanding you

This is and always has been the case.

But it's not a simple "misunderstanding".. it's the inability for critical thinking and common sense that you lack which prevents you from understanding.

[Seran]

It's not guns.. it's Democrat policies.

If you clean up the messes that Democrats have made out of most of our large cities (who have the strictest gun laws in the country) our "skyrocketing gun violence" would disappear.

So the quote from the court case had absolutely nothing to do with the ATF ruling, thanks for answering for him.

[Parkbandit]

So the quote from the court case had absolutely nothing to do with the ATF ruling, thanks for answering for him.

I'm going to dumb this conversation down for you as much as I possibly can. I will try to use little words as well:

SP: ATF just changed rules of what defines a firearms dealer
Seran: Our government is just trying to enforce the law!
SP: What? No they changed the definition of what a firearms dealer is.
Seran: It says "Well Regulated" in the 2nd Amendment so the government is just adding more regulations like the founding fathers wanted!
SP: What? You aren't making any sense.
Seran: IF WE COULD JUST SAVE 1% of the violence, isn't that worth it?
SP: What? You aren't making any sense.
Seran: Debate over. I win!


SP was the only person who's IQ isn't smaller than his actual age that didn't believe you were retarded.

Way to put him back on track with all normal people.

Fucking retard.

[Seran]

I'm going to dumb this conversation down for you as much as I possibly can. I will try to use little words as well:

SP: ATF just changed rules of what defines a firearms dealer
Seran: Our government is just trying to enforce the law!
SP: What? No they changed the definition of what a firearms dealer is.
Seran: It says "Well Regulated" in the 2nd Amendment so the government is just adding more regulations like the founding fathers wanted!
SP: What? You aren't making any sense.
Seran: IF WE COULD JUST SAVE 1% of the violence, isn't that worth it?
SP: What? You aren't making any sense.
Seran: Debate over. I win!


SP was the only person who's IQ isn't smaller than his actual age that didn't believe you were retarded.

Way to put him back on track with all normal people.

Fucking retard.

See look at that, your collective offense against the ATF rule is so convoluted and lacking any legal basis that even as you try and spin an entire page worth of pets, you still can't come up with a rational legal argument. If you're gonna move the goalposts PB, make sure it's in the same stadium you're playing in.

[Suppressed Poet]

I'm going to dumb this conversation down for you as much as I possibly can. I will try to use little words as well:

SP: ATF just changed rules of what defines a firearms dealer
Seran: Our government is just trying to enforce the law!
SP: What? No they changed the definition of what a firearms dealer is.
Seran: It says "Well Regulated" in the 2nd Amendment so the government is just adding more regulations like the founding fathers wanted!
SP: What? You aren't making any sense.
Seran: IF WE COULD JUST SAVE 1% of the violence, isn't that worth it?
SP: What? You aren't making any sense.
Seran: Debate over. I win!


SP was the only person who's IQ isn't smaller than his actual age that didn't believe you were retarded.

Way to put him back on track with all normal people.

Fucking retard.

I totally admit now to having a bit of a retard moment in my attempt to rationalize Seran being anything other than the Retard GOAT Champion. Nobody may quite understand why he is the way he is, but that doesn’t really matter in the scope of things.

[Suppressed Poet]

See look at that, your collective offense against the ATF rule is so convoluted and lacking any legal basis that even as you try and spin an entire page worth of pets, you still can't come up with a rational legal argument. If you're gonna move the goalposts PB, make sure it's in the same stadium you're playing in.

Seran, nobody was making the argument of well-regulated language in the 2nd Amendment except for you. The rest of your rant is nonsensical and lacks any intellectual effort. Simple question for you: Do you call yourself an American?

[Suppressed Poet]

And the ATF regulates all arms sales in the United States, retail, wholesale, or private. I may be misunderstanding you, but a line from the ruling "the Second Amendment’s usage refers to all able-bodied men who are capable of acting in concert for the common defense." supports the jurisdiction of the ATF to make these rules, so not entirely sure why you're inserting it into the topic.

The ATF didn’t become a thing until 1972 as an independent bureau of the Treasury department. Read the 2nd Amendment in its entirety. Read the shall not be infringed part fifty times. What they are doing is illegal and they know it, but they can inflict their damage while it takes years & millions of dollars spent in legal challenges. I advocate for the total repeal of their agency and will vote for & support politicians that have the balls & moral fortitude to act on their abolition.

Speaking for my own personal self for a moment & in the meantime until this is legally overturned, the joke is on them. I never sell my firearms. I just keep growing my collection & keeping my powder dry for that rainy day. Fuck them I won’t do what they tell me.

[Seran]

The ATF didn’t become a thing until 1972 as an independent bureau of the Treasury department. Read the 2nd Amendment in its entirety. Read the shall not be infringed part fifty times. What they are doing is illegal and they know it, but they can inflict their damage while it takes years & millions of dollars spent in legal challenges. I advocate for the total repeal of their agency and will vote for & support politicians that have the balls & moral fortitude to act on their abolition.

Speaking for my own personal self for a moment & in the meantime until this is legally overturned, the joke is on them. I never sell my firearms. I just keep growing my collection & keeping my powder dry for that rainy day. Fuck them I won’t do what they tell me.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'. That the sentence concludes with 'shall not be infringed' doesn't negate the fact the Framers intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. I'm sure someone else will agree with your argument about undue burden and take it to Court, however I don't see it being overridden on any constitutional merit.

[Suppressed Poet]

Now you're just splitting hairs. Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'. That the sentence concludes with 'shall not be infringed' doesn't negate the fact the Framers intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. I'm sure someone else will agree with your argument about undue burden and take it to Court, however I don't see it being overridden on any constitutional merit.

That is the dumbest group of words I have ever read. How did our government come to be? Do you think it would have helped the United States of America if the British government regulated (by your definition of it) firearms? Perhaps the colonists should have let governor Thomas Gage take and/or register all the firearms. Did we win a revolutionary war that way Seran? Why do you think the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified in the Bill of Rights?

https://media.tenor.com/ofdD0cJ5xQ0AAAAC/you-are-so-dumb-you-are-really-dumb.gif

[Seran]

That is the dumbest group of words I have ever read. How did our government come to be? Do you think it would have helped the United States of America if the British government regulated (by your definition of it) firearms? Perhaps the colonists should have let governor Thomas Gage take and/or register all the firearms. Did we win a revolutionary war that way Seran? Why do you think the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified in the Bill of Rights?

https://media.tenor.com/ofdD0cJ5xQ0AAAAC/you-are-so-dumb-you-are-really-dumb.gif

Still no legal arguments supporting your point of view, only ridiculous conjecture.

[Parkbandit]

See look at that, your collective offense against the ATF rule is so convoluted and lacking any legal basis that even as you try and spin an entire page worth of pets, you still can't come up with a rational legal argument. If you're gonna move the goalposts PB, make sure it's in the same stadium you're playing in.

I didn't say anything about the ATF actually.. so what goalpost was I moving, specifically?

I was merely making fun of your retardation... one post right after another.

[Parkbandit]

Now you're just splitting hairs. Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'.

Can you show me an actual cite source that "A well regulated militia" literally means "regulating firearms"? Like I have heard so many retarded arguments against the 2nd Amendment... but I'll be honest, I don't believe I have ever read one THIS fucking retarded.

SPOILER: The Second Amendment's "well-regulated" clause historically refers to a well-trained and organized militia, not gun control for individuals. It emphasizes the importance of a citizenry capable of defending itself, rather than government regulation of firearms.

[~Rocktar~]

Now you're just splitting hairs. Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'. That the sentence concludes with 'shall not be infringed' doesn't negate the fact the Framers intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. I'm sure someone else will agree with your argument about undue burden and take it to Court, however I don't see it being overridden on any constitutional merit.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen, 2020

Per the decision, laws restricting firearms ownership must meet the "text, history, and tradition" measure. So, show me the text, history and tradition of banning firearms based on the decision of an unelected official with no text of law authorizing such ban. Despite there not being a text, history or tradition of bans at all to support the constitutionality of any such ban in the first place.

Fuck off retard.

[Seran]

Can you show me an actual cite source that "A well regulated militia" literally means "regulating firearms"? Like I have heard so many retarded arguments against the 2nd Amendment... but I'll be honest, I don't believe I have ever read one THIS fucking retarded.

SPOILER: The Second Amendment's "well-regulated" clause historically refers to a well-trained and organized militia, not gun control for individuals. It emphasizes the importance of a citizenry capable of defending itself, rather than government regulation of firearms.

Really dude? SP already quoted the single defining case of our century pointing to the Second Amendment protecting an individuals right to bear arms. If you're going to participate, read the fucking posts you're defending by getting you nose out of his taint.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER 2008

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


I don't even agree with the Supreme Court interpretation, but even I know the case law.

[Solkern]

I honestly don’t see the big issue? So you possibly need register as a seller, to fill out some documents and check the person you’re selling to, what’s the big issue? How is this infringing on your second amendment?

It’s a small inconvenience, to make sure you’re not selling your gun to someone who shouldn’t have one.

[Parkbandit]

Really dude? SP already quoted the single defining case of our century pointing to the Second Amendment protecting an individuals right to bear arms. If you're going to participate, read the fucking posts you're defending by getting you nose out of his taint.

You literally wrote that the "Well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment is referring to our government regulating firearms.


I don't even agree with the Supreme Court interpretation, but even I know the case law.

That does not say that the phrase "well regulated" refers to the government regulating guns.

Literally, the only person I have ever heard say that is you.

Again.. I'll add this spoiler: The Second Amendment's "well-regulated" clause historically refers to a well-trained and organized militia, not gun control for individuals. It emphasizes the importance of a citizenry capable of defending itself, rather than government regulation of firearms.

[Parkbandit]

I honestly don’t see the big issue? So you possibly need register as a seller, to fill out some documents and check the person you’re selling to, what’s the big issue? How is this infringing on your second amendment?

It’s a small inconvenience, to make sure you’re not selling your gun to someone who shouldn’t have one.

You literally just posted why it was an infringement, by using the term "inconvenience".. unless you don't understand what the word "infringe" and if that is the case, here is the appropriate definition:

Infringe: the action of limiting or undermining something.

Now, you can argue whether or not that inconvenience is worth it in a society.. but you can't argue "how is this infringing on your second amendment" without looking foolish.

[Seran]

I honestly don’t see the big issue? So you possibly need register as a seller, to fill out some documents and check the person you’re selling to, what’s the big issue? How is this infringing on your second amendment?

It’s a small inconvenience, to make sure you’re not selling your gun to someone who shouldn’t have one.

You're right, it isn't a big deal. Some people just don't like the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people if it means some extra paperwork for themselves or less money on the black market.

[Seran]

You literally wrote that the "Well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment is referring to our government regulating firearms.



That does not say that the phrase "well regulated" refers to the government regulating guns.

Literally, the only person I have ever heard say that is you.

Again.. I'll add this spoiler: The Second Amendment's "well-regulated" clause historically refers to a well-trained and organized militia, not gun control for individuals. It emphasizes the importance of a citizenry capable of defending itself, rather than government regulation of firearms.

Lol, just gonna repeat yourself verbatim without reading the answer I posted to the exact same question above? You loser.

[Parkbandit]

Lol, just gonna repeat yourself verbatim without reading the answer I posted to the exact same question above? You loser.

I read your "answer" and it doesn't address your assertion that "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment means that government regulates guns.

The only one here that has made that claim is you.

Please die on this retard hill.

You fucking retard.

[Parkbandit]

Good news Seran.. just when I thought there is no way you could get dumber... you managed it!

Behold the newest addition to the Retard Hall of Fame!

RIP - Tsa'ah and his claim that Camp Lejeune used to be named Fort Lejeune and he has his birth certificate as evidence. That was an epic moment on the PC.. but we need to respect the depths of retardation that Seran brings to the table.

[Suppressed Poet]

I honestly don’t see the big issue? So you possibly need register as a seller, to fill out some documents and check the person you’re selling to, what’s the big issue? How is this infringing on your second amendment?

It’s a small inconvenience, to make sure you’re not selling your gun to someone who shouldn’t have one.

How about this…to prevent the possible spread of misinformation and hate speech, before you post anything online you must register with the federal government. It’s your responsibility to pay the speech registration tax. Also by registering you are inviting the feds to come into your home for an inspection anytime they feel like it. If it prevents just one of Seran’s retarded post it’s totally worth it. Am I right?

[Solkern]

How about this…to prevent the possible spread of misinformation and hate speech, before you post anything online you must register with the federal government. It’s your responsibility to pay the speech registration tax. Also by registering you are inviting the feds to come into your home for an inspection anytime they feel like it. If it prevents just one of Seran’s retarded post it’s totally worth it. Am I right?

That would infringe on my first amendment right, while this doesn’t infringe on the second amendment.

[Suppressed Poet]

That would infringe on my first amendment right, while this doesn’t infringe on the second amendment.

Please elaborate as to why you think this is not an infringement on the second amendment.

Is it perhaps instead because you think this infringement on the second amendment does directly effect you?

[Solkern]

Please elaborate as to why you think this is not an infringement on the second amendment.

Is it perhaps instead because you think this infringement on the second amendment does directly effect you?

How does me checking the person I’m selling to, stop me from my right to own a gun, or how does me checking someone stop their right to legally own a gun? The second amendment says nothing about selling. I own a few guns, and I have no issue doing these things to sell my guns, to make sure the person I sell to has the right to purchase it.

Some people don’t have the right to own a gun, and it’s our job as citizens to do what we can to keep guns out of hands of people who shouldn’t own them, wouldn’t you agree? Instead of waiting for them to shoot up a school, and then someone being hailed a hero because they legally owned a gun, and stopped him/her. This is like being the hero that doesn’t wear a cape.

[Suppressed Poet]

How does me checking the person I’m selling to, stop me from my right to own a gun? The second amendment says nothing about selling. I own a few guns, and I have no issue doing these things to sell my gun, to make sure the person I sell to has the right to purchase it.

I don’t think you understand what registering and being a FFL entails. There is nothing simple about it. First you go through a lengthy paperwork and BS process (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license). There are application and annual renewal fees. The ATF commonly performs inspections without announcement. It’s your responsibility that the person you are selling to folks out the 4473 completely & without errors. You are required to hold those forms for a period of 20 years.

Restricting people’s ability to sell their own personal property of firearms does indeed infringe upon people’s ability to keep & bear arms. You’re smart and can understand that.

If you were required to any of these things for any other constitutionally protected right, I suspect you would lose your shit. Because it is guns and you feel that it does not effect YOU directly, you are perfectly ok with the infringement.

[Solkern]

I don’t think you understand what registering and being a FFL entails. There is nothing simple about it. First you go through a lengthy paperwork and BS process (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license). There are application and annual renewal fees. The ATF commonly performs inspections without announcement. It’s your responsibility that the person you are selling to folks out the 4473 completely & without errors. You are required to hold those forms for a period of 20 years.

If you were required to any of these things for any other constitutionally protected right, I suspect you would lose your shit. Because it is guns and you feel that it does not effect YOU directly, you are perfectly ok with the infringement.

But here’s the thing, it doesn’t infringe anyone at all, it makes the process longer, but it doesn’t stop you from owning a gun, does it?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this law infringe or stop you from your legal right to own a gun? While I agree the process is painful and stupid, but it in no way stops you from owning a gun.

The only thing that stops you, is yourself not wanting to fill out these forms to buy from private citizens, when you can just go to a gun shop and buy it that way.

[Suppressed Poet]

The real insanity of all this, do you think criminals buying or selling firearms are going to suddenly cease doing so? “Well there is a new ATF rule so I better register as a FFL to sell my stolen Glock with a full auto switch.” This is about control and registration of legal gun owners. Don’t kid yourself this is for the greater good of preventing crime or mass shootings.

[Solkern]

The real insanity of all this, do you think criminals buying or selling firearms are going to suddenly cease doing so? “Well there is a new ATF rule so I better register as a FFL to sell my stolen Glock with a full auto switch.” This is about control and registration of legal gun owners. Don’t kid yourself this is for the greater good of preventing crime or mass shootings.


Probably not, you’re right, but it might stop a person with a mental problem, or someone with a felony that couldn’t buy it from a store because they failed the checks, from buying from a private citizen, that doesn’t require it.

[Suppressed Poet]

But here’s the thing, it doesn’t infringe anyone at all, it makes the process longer, but it doesn’t stop you from owning a gun, does it?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this law infringe or stop you from your legal right to own a gun? While I agree the process is painful and stupid, but it in no way stops you from owning a gun.

The only thing that stops you, is yourself not wanting to fill out these forms to buy from private citizens, when you can just go to a gun shop and buy it that way.

If I require you to register and pay a tax to exercise free speech, assembly, religion, press, etc. is that ok? It’s just making the process longer, harder, and more costly. Nobody is saying you can’t speak freely. The only thing stopping you from doing all that is you.

[~Rocktar~]

But here’s the thing, it doesn’t infringe anyone at all, it makes the process longer, but it doesn’t stop you from owning a gun, does it?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this law infringe or stop you from your legal right to own a gun? While I agree the process is painful and stupid, but it in no way stops you from owning a gun.

The only thing that stops you, is yourself not wanting to fill out these forms to buy from private citizens, when you can just go to a gun shop and buy it that way.

It interferes unduly with the 5th amendment right to private property. Further, there is no legislative mandate or guideline to support the administrative rule. What other piece of private property do you have to get a license to sell? Further, several bans and restrictions on sale and ownership have been struck down on the basis that that right to sell is included in the right to keep?

What other right do you have to get a license to exercise?

How much of my rights have to be sacrificed to ineffectively assuage your feelings?

[Solkern]

The real insanity of all this, do you think criminals buying or selling firearms are going to suddenly cease doing so? “Well there is a new ATF rule so I better register as a FFL to sell my stolen Glock with a full auto switch.” This is about control and registration of legal gun owners. Don’t kid yourself this is for the greater good of preventing crime or mass shootings.

I can easily go just go to https://www.armslist.com/ and buy a gun with zero checks.

[Methais]

Now you're just splitting hairs. Regulating firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals, the unhinged, etc. meets the first test of the 2nd amendment, 'well-regulated'. That the sentence concludes with 'shall not be infringed' doesn't negate the fact the Framers intended for the federal government to regulate firearms. I'm sure someone else will agree with your argument about undue burden and take it to Court, however I don't see it being overridden on any constitutional merit.

Who do you think is in charge of said "regulating?"

I already know that your answer is "The government" but I just want to hear you say it so I can laugh at how stupid you are some more.

Like this: :rofl:

[Solkern]

If I require you to register and pay a tax to exercise free speech, assembly, religion, press, etc. is that ok? It’s just making the process longer, harder, and more costly. Nobody is saying you can’t speak freely. The only thing stopping you from doing all that is you.

Can you show me anywhere in the second amendment where it talks about purchasing guns? It doesn’t.


It interferes unduly with the 5th amendment right to private property. Further, there is no legislative mandate or guideline to support the administrative rule. What other piece of private property do you have to get a license to sell? Further, several bans and restrictions on sale and ownership have been struck down on the basis that that right to sell is included in the right to keep?

What other right do you have to get a license to exercise?

How much of my rights have to be sacrificed to ineffectively assuage your feelings?

Then, guess what? We need to release all the drug dealers from prison, the police violated the 5th amendment. Those drugs were private property.

It’s not as black and white as you want it to be.

No one is restricting or banning the sale of guns, are they? Can you show me where it’s being restricted or banned? Because these changes don’t stop you from buying or owning a gun at all. All they do is make sure that as a private citizen selling a gun, the person you are selling it to, has the right to own one.

While I think the ATF is going overboard and it’s too much, but it does not infringe or stop a person who has a right to own a gun, from purchasing or own a gun at all.

[Parkbandit]

That would infringe on my first amendment right, while this doesn’t infringe on the second amendment.

Did you really just post this?

Just to reiterate your position:

SP: "Register your gun, pay a special tax and give future permission to federal agents to search your home and you can own your gun"
Soykern: "THAT DOESN'T INFRINGE ON YOUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHT! IT'S JUST A LITTLE INCONVENIENCE!"
SP: "Register your post, pay a special tax and give future permission to federal agents to search your home and you can say what you want"
Soykern: "THAT INFRINGES ON MY 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT!"

[Methais]

But here’s the thing, it doesn’t infringe anyone at all, it makes the process longer, but it doesn’t stop you from owning a gun, does it?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How does this law infringe or stop you from your legal right to own a gun? While I agree the process is painful and stupid, but it in no way stops you from owning a gun.

The only thing that stops you, is yourself not wanting to fill out these forms to buy from private citizens, when you can just go to a gun shop and buy it that way.

What do you think definition of the word "infringe" actually is? Because everything you just described with it making the process take longer, is painful, etc. is obvious infringement.

[Parkbandit]

I can easily go just go to https://www.armslist.com/ and buy a gun with zero checks.

Try.

Buy a gun on this site without using your real name or address.

[Parkbandit]

What do you think definition of the word "infringe" actually is? Because everything you just described with it making the process take longer, is painful, etc. is obvious infringement.

"It's just an inconvenience.. it's not infringing." -Soykern

[Methais]

Can you show me anywhere in the second amendment where it talks about purchasing guns? It doesn’t.

Oh ok. So if Person A just gives Person B a gun after Person B made a voluntary donation, that's ok then because it's technically not a sale. Right?


No one is restricting or banning the sale of guns, are they? Can you show me where it’s being restricted or banned? Because these changes don’t stop you from buying or owning a gun at all. All they do is make sure that as a private citizen selling a gun, the person you are selling it to, has the right to own one.


So you don't get the word "restrict" either.


While I think the ATF is going overboard and it’s too much, but it does not infringe or stop a person who has a right to own a gun, from purchasing or own a gun at all.

How so, when you keep saying they're not infringing on anything?

What specifically are they doing that you consider "too much" that also isn't them infringing on anything?

[Solkern]

What do you think definition of the word "infringe" actually is? Because everything you just described with it making the process take longer, is painful, etc. is obvious infringement.

Can I just go to a store and buy a gun? I can. This makes the process for buying a gun from a private citizen have more steps, but it doesn’t stop or infringe on your right to own or buy a gun, as like I said, I can simply go to a store and buy one.
Oh no! But I want to buy from this guy, and it’s more difficult! Is that your argument?

[Solkern]

Oh ok. So if Person A just gives Person B a gun after Person B made a voluntary donation, that's ok then because it's technically not a sale. Right?


So you don't get the word "restrict" either.



How so, when you keep saying they're not infringing on anything?

What specifically are they doing that you consider "too much" that also isn't them infringing on anything?

Why should a store require a background check and all these other things, but a private citizen shouldn’t?

[Suppressed Poet]

Can I just go to a store and buy a gun? I can. This makes the process for buying a gun from a private citizen have more steps, but it doesn’t stop or infringe on your right to own or buy a gun, as like I said, I can simply go to a store and buy one.
Oh no! But I want to buy from this guy, and it’s more difficult! Is that your argument?

More steps = infringement

Again, if I were to say you need to register and pay a tax to publish something you would not be cool with that. You can’t tax a natural God-given right. The first amendment says nothing about publishing, and yet it still would not be ok.

[Solkern]

More steps = infringement

Again, if I were to say you need to register and pay a tax to publish something you would not be cool with that. You can’t tax a natural God-given right. The first amendment says nothing about publishing, and yet it still would not be ok.

As a person that is buying a gun, how are these steps any more infringing, then the steps buying from a store?

[Suppressed Poet]

As a person that is buying a gun, how are these steps any more infringing, then the steps buying from a store?

Now you’re talking.

Let’s put that to the Bruen test.

[Methais]

Why should a store require a background check and all these other things, but a private citizen shouldn’t?

gg answering a question with a question while addressing none of the actual questions.

Let's try again.

So if Person A just gives Person B a gun after Person B made a voluntary donation, that's ok then because it's technically not a sale. Right?



While I think the ATF is going overboard and it’s too much, but it does not infringe or stop a person who has a right to own a gun, from purchasing or own a gun at all.

How so, when you keep saying they're not infringing on anything?

What specifically are they doing that you consider "too much" that also isn't them infringing on anything?

[Solkern]

Now you’re talking.

Let’s put that to the Bruen test.

Stores required checks, private citizens didn’t. Shouldn’t the standard be the same, no matter where you buy a gun from?
Pretty sure when buying a car, it has the same steps whether buying from a deal ship or from a private citizen.

[Solkern]

gg answering a question with a question while addressing none of the actual questions.

Let's try again.

So if Person A just gives Person B a gun after Person B made a voluntary donation, that's ok then because it's technically not a sale. Right?



How so, when you keep saying they're not infringing on anything?

What specifically are they doing that you consider "too much" that also isn't them infringing on anything?

So tell me, why should a store require checks, but a private citizen shouldn’t? You are complaining about infringing on rights, when we are just making the checks required more or less the same whether it’s from a store or a private citizen.

[Solkern]

Person A with mental problems: I can’t buy a gun from a store, since I can’t pass the checks, no worries! I can just get it it at Armslist and not have to worry about anything!

ATF: we want to stop this loophole from happening by requiring private citizens who sell guns to register and get background checks of buyers.

Methais: That’s an infringement!!!

Person A: Shoots up a school

Methais: We need more checks for mental illness, they shouldn’t be buying guns!

Lol? Is that how it’s going to go?

To answer you previous question. I think private sellers should be required to get a background check or do a background check of someone buying a gun, and that’s it.

[~Rocktar~]

Can you show me anywhere in the second amendment where it talks about purchasing guns? It doesn’t.



Then, guess what? We need to release all the drug dealers from prison, the police violated the 5th amendment. Those drugs were private property.

It’s not as black and white as you want it to be.

No one is restricting or banning the sale of guns, are they? Can you show me where it’s being restricted or banned? Because these changes don’t stop you from buying or owning a gun at all. All they do is make sure that as a private citizen selling a gun, the person you are selling it to, has the right to own one.

While I think the ATF is going overboard and it’s too much, but it does not infringe or stop a person who has a right to own a gun, from purchasing or own a gun at all.

There is no right to own drugs. Just like there is no right to drive on the road, attack another person or murder babies. There is a right to own arms. And yes, in the question of rights, it is black and white. And yes, I believe it should be the same for private individuals and stores, no checks. Let people buy what they want, when they want, with whatever accessories they want. Short of explosives, let people have automatic weapons, we can trace bullets and ballistics so you are responsible for every bullet you fire. Just like now.

Then the idiot argument is pit forward about kids, if you cared about kids, you would no support abortion or the war in Ukraine and you would be all for fossil fuels since they save innumerable lives every day. Next comes the whole "safety" thing but when it's posited to put guards in schools and so on, the Left and you ARE Leftist, cries about not wanting schools to look like prisons. Then there is the whole "mass shooting" issue when some of the largest murders in our history are carried out with bombs, planes and vehicles but you don't want to ban trucks or planes. It's a specious argument and you know it.

Again, how much of my rights have to be sacrificed to ineffectively assuage your feelings?

[Suppressed Poet]

Did you know that a church doesn’t have to fill out any forms or register as 501C3 entity to be considered nonprofit & tax exempt by the IRS? All other not for profit companies must register as a 501C3. Contemplate this and the reason why as it relates to this topic.

[Solkern]

There is no right to own drugs. Just like there is no right to drive on the road, attack another person or murder babies. There is a right to own arms. And yes, in the question of rights, it is black and white.

And there is no right to deny a felon or someone with mental problems from owning a gun either.

[Methais]

So tell me, why should a store require checks, but a private citizen shouldn’t? You are complaining about infringing on rights, when we are just making the checks required more or less the same whether it’s from a store or a private citizen.

If it's a private citizen that sells guns regularly or something, either for his living or as a side hustle, then sure, who gives a shit, because he's effectively a "store" at that point.

If it's some random jobber trying to sell a rifle he inherited from his grandpa but can't because he has to deal with mountains of paperwork and expensive red tape and shit first, and also keep paperwork on file for 20 years, being subject to random inspections and whatever else, then no, that's bullshit.

I'm just questioning your actual words, particularly the part where you're saying shit like how the ATF is doing "too much" while in the same breath saying they're not infringing on or restricting anything, and I'm asking for you to enlighten me with your wisdom so that I can understand how both things can be possible at the same time.

What specifically is the ATF doing that you consider to be "too much?"

This is all ignoring the fact that this will all have 0 effect on actual criminals, and will only restrict law abiding citizens who already aren't the problem, and also ignoring the fact that it won't stop there, as they'll keep placing more and more restrictions on everyone over time like they've been steadily doing for years now, all while criminals still have no problems getting guns.

This is due to the definition of the word "criminal."

[Solkern]

If it's a private citizen that sells guns regularly or something, either for his living or as a side hustle, then sure, who gives a shit, because he's effectively a "store" at that point.

If it's some random jobber trying to sell a rifle he inherited from his grandpa but can't because he has to deal with mountains of paperwork and expensive red tape and shit first, and also keep paperwork on file for 20 years, being subject to random inspections and whatever else, then no, that's bullshit.

I'm just questioning your actual words, particularly the part where you're saying shit like how the ATF is doing "too much" while in the same breath saying they're not infringing on or restricting anything, and I'm asking for you to enlighten me with your wisdom so that I can understand how both things can be possible at the same time.

What specifically is the ATF doing that you consider to be "too much?"

This is all ignoring the fact that this will all have 0 effect on actual criminals, and will only restrict law abiding citizens who already aren't the problem, and also ignoring the fact that it won't stop there, as they'll keep placing more and more restrictions on everyone over time like they've been steadily doing for years now, all while criminals still have no problems getting guns.

This is due to the definition of the word "criminal."


So let me get this right. A store requires mountains of paperwork, yet a private citizen requires zero, and you are ok with this?

But I can tell, you actually didn’t read anything about the rule changes. Because if you did, you would know this doesn’t effect a random jobber from selling his daddy’s gun.

Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they may be conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; at one’s home; by mail order; over the Internet; through the use of other electronic means (e.g., an online broker, online auction, text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises.

Maybe you should actually read it?

[Parkbandit]

While I think the ATF is going overboard and it’s too much, but it does not infringe or stop a person who has a right to own a gun, from purchasing or own a gun at all.

Typical Soykern mealy-mouth response.

"It's just a little inconvenience so it's not infringing.. but I think the ATF is going overboard and it's too much!"

[Suppressed Poet]

So let me get this right. A store requires mountains of paperwork, yet a private citizen requires zero, and you are ok with this?

But I can tell, you actually didn’t read anything about the rule changes. Because if you did, you would know this doesn’t effect a random jobber from selling his daddy’s gun.

Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they may be conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; at one’s home; by mail order; over the Internet; through the use of other electronic means (e.g., an online broker, online auction, text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises.

Maybe you should actually read it?

What in there did you read that said if you are a “random jobber selling daddy’s gun” in any of those places you are exempt?

BTW: This is what I meant in my original post of it being purposely ambiguous. If I sell my daddy’s gun to another private individual without registering as a FFL & background check on the buyer, and I make a profit from that transaction, am I breaking the law (or we can call it ATF rule)? I don’t know. I doubt you do.

[Solkern]

What in there did you read that said if you are a “random jobber selling daddy’s gun” in any of those places you are exempt?

The rules apply to people who do this as a part time job, or as some sort of business, not a one off thing.

[Parkbandit]

The rules apply to people who do this as a part time job, or as some sort of business, not a one off thing.

You actually believe this.. which is where you made the left turn to Retardville.

Can you quote the part of the new regulations from the ATF where it states that "one off thing" is exempt?

[Solkern]

What in there did you read that said if you are a “random jobber selling daddy’s gun” in any of those places you are exempt?

These proposed changes would assist persons in understanding when they are required to have a license to deal in firearms. Consistent with the Gun Control Act (“GCA”) and existing regulations, the proposed rule also defines the term “personal collection” to clarify when persons are not “engaged in the business” because they make only occasional sales to enhance a personal collection, or for a hobby, or if the firearms they sell are all or part of a personal collection.

[Suppressed Poet]

These proposed changes would assist persons in understanding when they are required to have a license to deal in firearms. Consistent with the Gun Control Act (“GCA”) and existing regulations, the proposed rule also defines the term “personal collection” to clarify when persons are not “engaged in the business” because they make only occasional sales to enhance a personal collection, or for a hobby, or if the firearms they sell are all or part of a personal collection.

What are occasional sales? Say I have a personal collection of 500+ firearms, and in 2023 I decide to sell 100 (just 1/5th of my collection). Is that occasional?

[Solkern]

What are occasional sales? Say I have a personal collection of 500+ firearms, and in 2023 I decide to sell 100 (just 1/5th of my collection). Is that occasional?

Occasional doesn’t mean the amount, but means how often. You aren’t in the business of buying and selling guns.

You’re selling to either enhance, or dwindle your current collection, it’s not your business.

But I agree the rules still need to be clarified.

[~Rocktar~]

And there is no right to deny a felon or someone with mental problems from owning a gun either.

Actually, there is a lot of history, text and tradition at the time of the Bill of Rights to do just that. So, it passes the test. Next fallacy you want to try and defend taking people's rights away with?

BTW, those already doing it as a part time job are already covered by the current rules. This is trying to apply it to EVERYONE just because they feel like it.

Again, how much of my rights have to be sacrificed to ineffectively assuage your feelings?

[Solkern]

Actually, there is a lot of history, text and tradition at the time of the Bill of Rights to do just that. So, it passes the test. Next fallacy you want to try and defend taking people's rights away with?

BTW, those already doing it as a part time job are already covered by the current rules. This is trying to apply it to EVERYONE just because they feel like it.

Again, how much of my rights have to be sacrificed to ineffectively assuage your feelings?

But it doesn’t, maybe if you read it, you’d see that, instead of making baseless assumptions.

It doesn’t cover existing rules because private sellers required zero checks federally, now they do.

[Methais]

So let me get this right. A store requires mountains of paperwork, yet a private citizen requires zero, and you are ok with this?

But I can tell, you actually didn’t read anything about the rule changes. Because if you did, you would know this doesn’t effect a random jobber from selling his daddy’s gun.

Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever medium, they may be conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house, or gun range or club; at one’s home; by mail order; over the Internet; through the use of other electronic means (e.g., an online broker, online auction, text messaging service, social media raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or premises.

Maybe you should actually read it?

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I agree with everything you're saying, except for this one small part you posted that I'm a little confused about, and I am asking for you to clarify:


While I think the ATF is going overboard and it’s too much, but it does not infringe or stop a person who has a right to own a gun, from purchasing or own a gun at all.

What specifically is the ATF doing that you consider to be "too much?"

[Suppressed Poet]

Occasional doesn’t mean the amount, but means how often. You aren’t in the business of buying and selling guns.

You’re selling to either enhance, or dwindle your current collection, it’s not your business.

But I agree the rules still need to be clarified.

Clarification is only one small issue. The whole rule is illegal and an infringement on our rights.

The ATF is a bureaucracy. They don’t have the authority to make new laws. Only Congress can do that. They don’t have the authority to redefine and/or interpret the law. That is the job of our judicial system. Why did Biden direct the ATF to implement universal background checks without Congress? We both know why. It’s the same reason for student debt forgiveness. Because Congress won’t pass a bill to do so.

[Solkern]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I agree with everything you're saying, except for this one small part you posted that I'm a little confused about, and I am asking for you to clarify:



What specifically is the ATF doing that you consider to be "too much?"

I don’t think private sellers should be required to get a license, but should be required to get a background check for anyone that buys a gun from them. I’ve already said that. Also they should be required to keep records of all sales.

[Suppressed Poet]

I don’t think private sellers should be required to get a license, but should be required to get a background check for anyone that buys a gun from them. I’ve already said that.

Do you think our government should have a registration list of firearms? How would they enforce universal background checks without one?

[Seran]

More steps = infringement

Again, if I were to say you need to register and pay a tax to publish something you would not be cool with that. You can’t tax a natural God-given right. The first amendment says nothing about publishing, and yet it still would not be ok.

Delay is not infringement. Process is not burden. Verification is not an invasion of privacy. I don't know why it's such a monumental effort to wrap your brain around the idea that reasonable efforts to regulate firearms as defined by the second amendment is by means somehow a violation of 'god-given' rights. Someone out of their mind wanting to purchase a firearm to commit a crime being 'burdened' by forms a dealer has to fill out, or having harder to find access to a black market driven further underground by federal enforcement? GREAT. You're treating what is little more than the equivalent of waiting in line at the DMV to register your vehicle as some authoritarian invasion of your rights and it is hilarious.

[Suppressed Poet]

I don’t think private sellers should be required to get a license, but should be required to get a background check for anyone that buys a gun from them. I’ve already said that. Also they should be required to keep records of all sales.

Go watch the film Red Dawn. Watch the original 1984 version and not the crappy watered down remake. What is the first thing the invading communists did after they took control of the area? They paid a visit to all the local FFLs to seize their form 4473s.

[Parkbandit]

This might be my favorite thread of the year so far.

Thank you Suppressed Poet.

[Suppressed Poet]

Delay is not infringement. Process is not burden. Verification is not an invasion of privacy. I don't know why it's such a monumental effort to wrap your brain around the idea that reasonable efforts to regulate firearms as defined by the second amendment is by means somehow a violation of 'god-given' rights. Someone out of their mind wanting to purchase a firearm to commit a crime being 'burdened' by forms a dealer has to fill out, or having harder to find access to a black market driven further underground by federal enforcement? GREAT. You're treating what is little more than the equivalent of waiting in line at the DMV to register your vehicle as some authoritarian invasion of your rights and it is hilarious.

Ok cool. Yeah let’s make it a rule that to register to vote you have to visit your local DMV in person with all the appropriate identification to verify you are eligible to vote. The process to receive a federal voter registration card may take up to 2 years. You are also required to pass a literacy test & take a course on the civic responsibility you have with voting. You also need to pay a tax of $200 for the process of registering to vote. Every poll center across America must verify your voter registration card in person for you to legally cast your ballot in any federal election.

That’s not infringement, correct?

[Suppressed Poet]

This might be my favorite thread of the year so far.

Thank you Suppressed Poet.

Agreed and you are most welcome.

Also, there are indeed lots of trannys at the ATF.

[Seran]

Ok cool. Yeah let’s make it a rule that to register to vote you have to visit your local DMV in person with all the appropriate identification to verify you are eligible to vote. The process to receive a federal voter registration card may take up to 2 years. You are also required to pass a literacy test & take a course on the civic responsibility you have with voting. You also need to pay a tax of $200 for the process of registering to vote. Every poll center across America must verify your voter registration card in person for you to legally cast your ballot in any federal election.

That’s not infringement, correct?

It's interesting that you would bring up voter rights and making registration more difficult when your party is doing just that. Don't even need to go into restricting balloting locations or having far more voting locations in dense urban areas requiring hours long wait while small conservative communities somehow get them in every neighborhood. The Constitution doesn't prescribe that voting be 'well-regulated' like it does firearms in the second amendment, as a matter of fact the text couldn't be simpler in the Twenty-Six Amendment:


The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The text specifically prohibits the right of voting from being abridged. Meanwhile, your gun toting compatriots are trying to pretend the constitution doesn't specifically identify an armed citizenry must be well-regulated. Why? I think you pretty much identified it with an earlier remark about 'god-given rights'. You do realize that manifest destiny is only propaganda right? There is no eleventh commandment going on to say; "Thine house shall bear arms." and Remington or Smith and Wesson aren't missing apostles of Jesus Christ outside of southern baptist teachings.

[Suppressed Poet]

It's interesting that you would bring up voter rights and making registration more difficult when your party is doing just that. Don't even need to go into restricting balloting locations or having far more voting locations in dense urban areas requiring hours long wait while small conservative communities somehow get them in every neighborhood. The Constitution doesn't prescribe that voting be 'well-regulated' like it does firearms in the second amendment, as a matter of fact the text couldn't be simpler in the Twenty-Six Amendment:



The text specifically prohibits the right of voting from being abridged. Meanwhile, your gun toting compatriots are trying to pretend the constitution doesn't specifically identify an armed citizenry must be well-regulated. Why? I think you pretty much identified it with an earlier remark about 'god-given rights'. You do realize that manifest destiny is only propaganda right? There is no eleventh commandment going on to say; "Thine house shall bear arms." and Remington or Smith and Wesson aren't missing apostles of Jesus Christ outside of southern baptist teachings.

You went full retard on this post.

[Methais]

It's interesting that you would bring up voter rights and making registration more difficult when your party is doing just that. Don't even need to go into restricting balloting locations or having far more voting locations in dense urban areas requiring hours long wait while small conservative communities somehow get them in every neighborhood. The Constitution doesn't prescribe that voting be 'well-regulated' like it does firearms in the second amendment, as a matter of fact the text couldn't be simpler in the Twenty-Six Amendment:



The text specifically prohibits the right of voting from being abridged. Meanwhile, your gun toting compatriots are trying to pretend the constitution doesn't specifically identify an armed citizenry must be well-regulated. Why? I think you pretty much identified it with an earlier remark about 'god-given rights'. You do realize that manifest destiny is only propaganda right? There is no eleventh commandment going on to say; "Thine house shall bear arms." and Remington or Smith and Wesson aren't missing apostles of Jesus Christ outside of southern baptist teachings.

That sure is a lot of words just to shriek "That's d-d-d-different!!!!"



You went full retard on this post.

I just want to hear him tell us who is in charge of regulating these militias so I can laugh when he says the government again.

[Seran]

You went full retard on this post.

Well argued. Guess you really don't understand the difference between the Twenty Sixth and Second Amendments. Kind of sad really.

[Suppressed Poet]

Well argued. Guess you really don't understand the difference between the Twenty Sixth and Second Amendments. Kind of sad really.

Please answer my prior question. Why do you think the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified in the Bill of Rights? You make it sound like it was to give power to the federal government to regulate firearms. I don’t want to assume and I’ll give you the opportunity to clarify your position.

[~Rocktar~]

But it doesn’t, maybe if you read it, you’d see that, instead of making baseless assumptions.

It doesn’t cover existing rules because private sellers required zero checks federally, now they do.

WRONG, it changes the foundation of how a person is defined as a dealer and that DOES affect private sellers. It is moving people who sell a few guns a year or so from private seller into the realm of requiring an FFL. It does it with no legislative mandate for the change. And it does it with no quantitative definition of guidelines. Next bullshit lie you want to try and sell to take away people's rights?

Again, how much of my rights have to be sacrificed to ineffectively assuage your feelings?

[Seran]

Please answer my prior question. Why do you think the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified in the Bill of Rights? You make it sound like it was to give power to the federal government to regulate firearms. I don’t want to assume and I’ll give you the opportunity to clarify your position.

The conjecture has nothing to do with the topic, you're attempting to reinterpret the Constitution in a way that both the plaintext reading and at least one supreme court ruling contradicts. How about instead YOU tell every one else why both the ruling in 2008 on Heller and how the well-regulated clause in the Second Amendment supports your belief the ATF did something wrong.

[Suppressed Poet]

The conjecture has nothing to do with the topic, you're attempting to reinterpret the Constitution in a way that both the plaintext reading and at least one supreme court ruling contradicts. How about instead YOU tell every one else why both the ruling in 2008 on Heller and how the well-regulated clause in the Second Amendment supports your belief the ATF did something wrong.

I’ve told you several times and cited the decision. Well-regulated means well equipped / trained / armed. Militia means all able-bodied men outside of formal military service. It’s recognized that we have an individual (not collective) right to keep & bear arms. Going even further, the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is not a hindrance or prerequisite to the operative clause, but just gives an explanation as to why the operative clause (shall not be infringed) is recognized as a right. This was all clarified in the 2008 decision you are referencing. Heller was a major win for gun rights yet you keep referencing it as a reason for gun control.

[drumpel]

I think Samson says it pretty good.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ih5lMnLy8&ab_channel=Samson

[Seran]

I’ve told you several times and cited the decision. Well-regulated means well equipped / trained / armed. Militia means all able-bodied men outside of formal military service. It’s recognized that we have an individual (not collective) right to keep & bear arms. Going even further, the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment is not a hindrance or prerequisite to the operative clause, but just gives an explanation as to why the operative clause (shall not be infringed) is recognized as a right. This was all clarified in the 2008 decision you are referencing. Heller was a major win for gun rights yet you keep referencing it as a reason for gun control.

That is your opinion, one that isn't backed by any caselaw. As a matter of fact, Heller established that the prefatory cause extended to all individuals who would bear arms and did not apply to militias only, and reinforced the federal government's responsibility as granted by the second amendment to regulate arms.


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The Supreme Court led by your much cherished conservative majority already decided this issue that your original post is bitching about. Your belief that the ATF is acting 'tyrannically' is nothing more than your opinion; the ATF has the Second Amendment on it's side regardless of your opinion.

[Suppressed Poet]

That is your opinion, one that isn't backed by any caselaw. As a matter of fact, Heller established that the prefatory cause extended to all individuals who would bear arms and did not apply to militias only, and reinforced the federal government's responsibility as granted by the second amendment to regulate arms.



The Supreme Court led by your much cherished conservative majority already decided this issue that your original post is bitching about. Your belief that the ATF is acting 'tyrannically' is nothing more than your opinion; the ATF has the Second Amendment on it's side regardless of your opinion.

Part of what you said is true. All rights including the 2nd Amendment are not unlimited. The old burden of the government to implement gun control was the common use standard. Bruen took it further and says that any kind of gun control must be in the history, text, and tradition at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. Were universal background checks and the ATF requiring FFL registration of anybody selling firearms part of the history, text, and tradition of 1791? I think not.

Edit: Also that is not my opinion. It’s the opinion of SCOTUS. Read Heller in its entirety. Justice Scalia gave a brilliant breakdown of the meaning of the 2nd amendment & a detailed historical assessment of every word. You refuse to either read or acknowledge the truth. I can’t fix stupid.

[Seran]

Part of what you said is true. All rights including the 2nd Amendment are not unlimited. The old burden of the government to implement gun control was the common use standard. Bruen took it further and says that any kind of gun control must be in the history, text, and tradition at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. Were universal background checks and the ATF requiring FFL registration of anybody selling firearms part of the history, text, and tradition of 1791? I think not.

Edit: Also that is not my opinion. It’s the opinion of SCOTUS. Read Heller in its entirety. Justice Scalia gave a brilliant breakdown of the meaning of the 2nd amendment & a detailed historical assessment of every word. You refuse to either read or acknowledge the truth. I can’t fix stupid.

It's your own stupidity you seem to be struggling to address, nothing in the Heller opinion limits the ability of the federal government to regulate the registry requirements of arms sales.

[Suppressed Poet]

It's your own stupidity you seem to be struggling to address, nothing in the Heller opinion limits the ability of the federal government to regulate the registry requirements of arms sales.

1) You are a stubborn ignorant bastard and you are wrong about Heller.

2) There is no federal registry of firearms except for certain ones (for example short barreled rifles or select fire) specifically defined in the 1934 National Firearms Act. A federal registry of commonly used firearms would be illegal, according to Heller, because it infringes on the individual right to keep & bear arms.



18 USC § 923(g)(4)
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

3) Did you forget about Bruen or are you just choosing to ignore what is inconvenient for you?

Seriously Seran, go move to China or somewhere else where your bootlicking illiterate soy-loving freedom-hating disgrace for a man would be much more comfortable. You are destined to live as a subject and have no place in the United States of America.

[Solkern]

1) You are a stubborn ignorant bastard and you are wrong about Heller.

2) There is no federal registry of firearms except for certain ones (for example short barreled rifles or select fire) specifically defined in the 1934 National Firearms Act. A federal registry of commonly used firearms would be illegal, according to Heller, because it infringes on the individual right to keep & bear arms.



3) Did you forget about Bruen or are you just choosing to ignore what is inconvenient for you?

Seriously Seran, go move to China or somewhere else where your bootlicking illiterate soy-loving freedom-hating disgrace for a man would be much more comfortable. You are destined to live as a subject and have no place in the United States of America.


What I still don’t understand how this “infringes” on your right to own a gun. Regarding going to a store, absolutely nothing has changed, zero.. it’s still the same exact process as before. The only difference is now private sellers need to get more paperwork.

Your complaint is. It infringes because private sellers need to be on par with licensed sellers? The ability to buy a gun hasn’t changed, at all. All that has changed is, now you need to have documents to buy a gun from private sellers, instead of zero documents.

This change doesn’t make it more difficult or time consuming to buy a gun at all, as I can just go to a gun store, like before the law and buy a gun.

[Suppressed Poet]

What I still don’t understand how this “infringes” on your right to own a gun. Regarding going to a store, absolutely nothing has changed, zero.. it’s still the same exact process as before. The only difference is now private sellers need to get more paperwork.

Your complaint is. It infringes because private sellers need to be on par with licensed sellers? The ability to buy a gun hasn’t changed, at all. All that has changed is, now you need to have documents to buy a gun from private sellers, instead of zero documents.

This change doesn’t make it more difficult or time consuming to buy a gun at all, as I can just go to a gun store, like before the law and buy a gun.

Maybe I want to buy one or more guns from my neighbor. This certainly makes that process more difficult. That’s an infringement. It’s really that simple.

What this is really about is the government wants to track and know who owns what firearm. That is why they previously went after “ghost guns” and that is why they are doing this. It has nothing to do with background checks, or preventing crime, or any of that. Gun control is about control, and it should be alarming to us all.

[Parkbandit]

Well-regulated means well equipped / trained / armed. Militia means all able-bodied men outside of formal military service.

My hope is that Seran finally realizes how dumb his "well regulated means the government regulates!" and just goes:

https://gifdb.com/images/high/genius-head-exploding-7fxlzrwk2wbcbnb5.gif

But my guess would be that he dies on the retard hill he made.

[Parkbandit]

It's your own stupidity you seem to be struggling to address, nothing in the Heller opinion limits the ability of the federal government to regulate the registry requirements of arms sales.

Well, except the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

[Methais]

My hope is that Seran finally realizes how dumb his "well regulated means the government regulates!" and just goes:

https://gifdb.com/images/high/genius-head-exploding-7fxlzrwk2wbcbnb5.gif

But my guess would be that he dies on the retard hill he made.

Silvers will be $10 per before that happens.

[Seran]

1) You are a stubborn ignorant bastard and you are wrong about Heller.

2) There is no federal registry of firearms except for certain ones (for example short barreled rifles or select fire) specifically defined in the 1934 National Firearms Act. A federal registry of commonly used firearms would be illegal, according to Heller, because it infringes on the individual right to keep & bear arms.



3) Did you forget about Bruen or are you just choosing to ignore what is inconvenient for you?

Seriously Seran, go move to China or somewhere else where your bootlicking illiterate soy-loving freedom-hating disgrace for a man would be much more comfortable. You are destined to live as a subject and have no place in the United States of America.

LOL, 18 USC 923 pertains only to limiting the ability of the federal government to create registries of firearms owners, or transactions. The ATF rule you're crying about is limited to requiring individuals obtain a license as a firearms dealer and be subject to a background check, which isn't a contradiction the 923. Nice try tho!

[Parkbandit]

Maybe I want to buy one or more guns from my neighbor. This certainly makes that process more difficult. That’s an infringement. It’s really that simple.

What this is really about is the government wants to track and know who owns what firearm. That is why they previously went after “ghost guns” and that is why they are doing this. It has nothing to do with background checks, or preventing crime, or any of that. Gun control is about control, and it should be alarming to us all.

My hope is that the current Court sees multiple gun control cases so we can finally get some Constitutionally sound opinions from the Court. Then, people like Seran, will accept the opinions of the SCOTUS and feel comfort in knowing that everything is working as intended.

[Suppressed Poet]

LOL, 18 USC 923 pertains only to limiting the ability of the federal government to create registries of firearms owners, or transactions. The ATF rule you're crying about is limited to requiring individuals obtain a license as a firearms dealer and be subject to a background check, which isn't a contradiction the 923. Nice try tho!

Seran, do you have trouble remembering what you said in your last post? The great thing about it being in writing is you can go back and read it for yourself. Allow me to remind me on the stupid thing you said which is why I referenced that law.


It's your own stupidity you seem to be struggling to address, nothing in the Heller opinion limits the ability of the federal government to regulate the registry requirements of arms sales.

[Parkbandit]

What I still don’t understand how this “infringes” on your right to own a gun. Regarding going to a store, absolutely nothing has changed, zero.. it’s still the same exact process as before. The only difference is now private sellers need to get more paperwork.

Your complaint is. It infringes because private sellers need to be on par with licensed sellers? The ability to buy a gun hasn’t changed, at all. All that has changed is, now you need to have documents to buy a gun from private sellers, instead of zero documents.

This change doesn’t make it more difficult or time consuming to buy a gun at all, as I can just go to a gun store, like before the law and buy a gun.

You answered your own question.

[Suppressed Poet]

My hope is that the current Court sees multiple gun control cases so we can finally get some Constitutionally sound opinions from the Court. Then, people like Seran, will accept the opinions of the SCOTUS and feel comfort in knowing that everything is working as intended.

Yes. Many of the anti-gun states & the ATF are openly defying the Bruen standard & SCOTUS. They know they will lose eventually but are willing to waste tax dollars fighting it in court. Unfortunately the judicial system moves slowly.

[Methais]

You answered your own question.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0xPii0EiysYE2o

Part 1 for context (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbC0-tuYE2o)


The process to get the TV is still exactly the same, the only difference is that have to wear a tuxedo, crawl through a tiny door, deal with an alligator, etc.

https://media.tenor.com/qnKdc_MVyi8AAAAd/awkward-naked-gun.gif

[Suppressed Poet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0xPii0EiysYE2o

Part 1 for context (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbC0-tuYE2o)


The process to get the TV is still exactly the same, the only difference is that have to wear a tuxedo, crawl through a tiny door, deal with an alligator, etc.

https://media.tenor.com/qnKdc_MVyi8AAAAd/awkward-naked-gun.gif

In Nazi Germany 1938, laws decreed that Jewish men must take the middle name ‘Israel’ and women ‘Sarah’. All German Jews would have their passports marked with a ‘J’.

But they didn’t say that Jews couldn’t travel! I don’t see any government infringement. It’s just a little paperwork and showing identification when “papers please” is demanded by the government. If it saves just one life it’s totally worth giving up a little freedom. -modern day far left logic

[Seran]

Seran, do you have trouble remembering what you said in your last post? The great thing about it being in writing is you can go back and read it for yourself. Allow me to remind me on the stupid thing you said which is why I referenced that law.

And the ATF ruling addresses specifically the registration for arms dealers, which isn't a contradiction of 18 USC 923, not quite sure where you're going with that beyond struggling with reading comprehension.

[Suppressed Poet]

And the ATF ruling addresses specifically the registration for arms dealers, which isn't a contradiction of 18 USC 923, not quite sure where you're going with that beyond struggling with reading comprehension.

You didn’t say registry of arms dealers. You said registry of arms sales.

Regarding the illegality of the ATF changing the definition of a dealer & making a new rule:

1) Bruen vs NY State Pistol Association: This restriction does not meet the standard of having the history, text, or tradition at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.

2) Sackett vs EPA: This decision effectively ended the reliance of chevron deference doctrine that bureaucratic agencies can make up their own interpretation of the law & implement their own rules. The courts have the ultimate authority to interpret laws written by Congress, not the ATF.

We’ll see it play out in the courts. It just takes time.

[~Rocktar~]

My hope is that the current Court sees multiple gun control cases so we can finally get some Constitutionally sound opinions from the Court. Then, people like Seran, will accept the opinions of the SCOTUS and feel comfort in knowing that everything is working as intended.

Yeah, almost all of the current firearm cases in the courts today should have been settled by SCOTUS decisions back in the 1800s when they first came up. But nooooooooo, cowardly courts not wanting to take a position and clarifying the law along with shitbag legislators not stepping up. Just like most things, fail to address it the first time, it causes problems over and over again.

[Realk]

Not my hill not my fight, but I'll about the fact that it's clearly an overstep and allowing an inch they will eventually go a mile.

[Suppressed Poet]

Yeah, almost all of the current firearm cases in the courts today should have been settled by SCOTUS decisions back in the 1800s when they first came up. But nooooooooo, cowardly courts not wanting to take a position and clarifying the law along with shitbag legislators not stepping up. Just like most things, fail to address it the first time, it causes problems over and over again.

Gun control is rooted in the racist suppression of the rights of minorities, and that took us down a dark path.

Dredd Scott vs Sandford: Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that one reason Black people could not be citizens under the Constitution was that it “would give to persons of the negro race” the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

[Suppressed Poet]

Not my hill not my fight, but I'll about the fact that it's clearly an overstep and allowing an inch they will eventually go a mile.

It’s too bad John Cornyn either didn’t understand this or doesn’t care. Can’t wait to vote out that rhino bastard in 2027.

[~Rocktar~]

Gun control is rooted in the racist suppression of the rights of minorities, and that took us down a dark path.

Dredd Scott vs Sandford: Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that one reason Black people could not be citizens under the Constitution was that it “would give to persons of the negro race” the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

And SUPRISE, the racist Democrats that have been on the side of racism and oppression of the poor are STILL using it to oppress minorities, women and the poor.

[Seran]

You didn’t say registry of arms dealers. You said registry of arms sales.

Regarding the illegality of the ATF changing the definition of a dealer & making a new rule:

1) Bruen vs NY State Pistol Association: This restriction does not meet the standard of having the history, text, or tradition at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.

2) Sackett vs EPA: This decision effectively ended the reliance of chevron deference doctrine that bureaucratic agencies can make up their own interpretation of the law & implement their own rules. The courts have the ultimate authority to interpret laws written by Congress, not the ATF.

We’ll see it play out in the courts. It just takes time.

You're now arguing that because two other unrelated rulings, one on concealed and carry, the other unrelated to firearms whatsoever is the basis that ATF requiring additional dealer registration is unconstitutional? That's a stretch, but as you pointed out we'll see how that argument plays out if it is actually heard before the Court with that justification.

[Methais]

Not my hill not my fight, but I'll about the fact that it's clearly an overstep and allowing an inch they will eventually go a mile.

Seran unironically believes that the government has integrity and good intentions and would never deceive anyone or overstep their boundaries. He thinks big government, at least when controlled by democrats, is everything that is pure and good and he believes literally everything they say.

It's because he's a ginormous retard.

[Solkern]

Maybe I want to buy one or more guns from my neighbor. This certainly makes that process more difficult. That’s an infringement. It’s really that simple.

What this is really about is the government wants to track and know who owns what firearm. That is why they previously went after “ghost guns” and that is why they are doing this. It has nothing to do with background checks, or preventing crime, or any of that. Gun control is about control, and it should be alarming to us all.

Maybe I want to get a gun from a neighbor, and what? You seem to be missing the point. This law doesn’t stop you or infringe on your ability to get a gun at all. You can go to the store and get a gun. Zero issues.

The problem seems to be for you, is “I want to get a gun from a neighbor, and I’m upset that I actually have to follow the same procedure that it would take to buy a gun from a store”

You and others sit here and say we need to keep guns out of people with mental issues or ones that have felonies, and this rule closes a major loophole for them to acquire guns without any checks.

So what happens when some dude with a mental issue buys a gun from a private citizen because he got turned down at a regular store and goes on a rampage at a school? Your argument of we need to keep the guns out of the hands of people with mental problems, won’t work anymore.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe I want to get a gun from a neighbor, and what? You seem to be missing the point. This law doesn’t stop you or infringe on your ability to get a gun at all. You can go to the store and get a gun. Zero issues.

The problem seems to be for you, is “I want to get a gun from a neighbor, and I’m upset that I actually have to follow the same procedure that it would take to buy a gun from a store”

You and others sit here and say we need to keep guns out of people with mental issues or ones that have felonies, and this rule closes a major loophole for them to acquire guns without any checks.

So what happens when some dude with a mental issue buys a gun from a private citizen because he got turned down at a regular store and goes on a rampage at a school? Your argument of we need to keep the guns out of the hands of people with mental problems, won’t work anymore.

You should never, ever own a gun.

Period.

[Suppressed Poet]

Maybe I want to get a gun from a neighbor, and what? You seem to be missing the point. This law doesn’t stop you or infringe on your ability to get a gun at all. You can go to the store and get a gun. Zero issues.

The problem seems to be for you, is “I want to get a gun from a neighbor, and I’m upset that I actually have to follow the same procedure that it would take to buy a gun from a store”

You and others sit here and say we need to keep guns out of people with mental issues or ones that have felonies, and this rule closes a major loophole for them to acquire guns without any checks.

So what happens when some dude with a mental issue buys a gun from a private citizen because he got turned down at a regular store and goes on a rampage at a school? Your argument of we need to keep the guns out of the hands of people with mental problems, won’t work anymore.

Come on Solkern. You’re smart and reasonable. We may not agree on everything but you understand that making it so that exercising a right more difficult & cumbersome is infringement. You answered it yourself when you acknowledged it’s more of a pain in the ass.

If some bureaucrats came up with a new rule that voting in a federal election requires physical voter registration to get a card, no mail in ballots, a literacy test, the requirement of some BS government mandated voter safety class, paying a tax, a waiting period, etc. in an effort to (possibly) prevent voter fraud…you would object. Why are you ok with those infringements on one constitutional right but not others?

I hate unspeakable acts of violence and mass shootings just as much as you do. We’re both parents. I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals & the mentally ill, but I WILL NOT sacrifice our God-given constitutionally protected rights. They need to find a way to accomplish keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys (and actually prosecuting criminals when they do violate the law) instead of the answer always being to chip away at more of the good guys’ freedom.

A private individual selling some of his guns to another private individual (with no knowledge or reason to believe the buyer is a felon or mentally ill) doesn’t have the resources to do a NAICS check. They shouldn’t have to register as a FFL just to sell some of their personal property. Forcing them to do so is clearly an infringement and overstep. What is worse is that this is the ATF creating a new rule, not Congress.

To answer your question, you know what they can do? Chicago has double digit gun homicides by gang bangers every week. Instead of fucking with law abiding Americans, why don’t they do some real law enforcement work and bust those thugs engaged in criminal activity? Go confiscate their guns. You have my full support in that.

[Realk]

I believe, almost every school shooting/mass shooting in recent years has been performed with guns bought legally from a store not at P2P transaction. So that negates idea of that buying something from your Neighbor leads to shootings.

Or kept unsecure, but was initially purchased legally and removed by bad gun owners.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What if I want to give my firearms to a family member, does that also require more paperwork?

[Suppressed Poet]

What if I want to give my firearms to a family member, does that also require more paperwork?

If it’s not a registered NFA item, no. At least not yet.

[Seran]

What if I want to give my firearms to a family member, does that also require more paperwork?


Come on Solkern. You’re smart and reasonable. We may not agree on everything but you understand that making it so that exercising a right more difficult & cumbersome is infringement. You answered it yourself when you acknowledged it’s more of a pain in the ass.

If some bureaucrats came up with a new rule that voting in a federal election requires physical voter registration to get a card, no mail in ballots, a literacy test, the requirement of some BS government mandated voter safety class, paying a tax, a waiting period, etc. in an effort to (possibly) prevent voter fraud…you would object. Why are you ok with those infringements on one constitutional right but not others?

I hate unspeakable acts of violence and mass shootings just as much as you do. We’re both parents. I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals & the mentally ill, but I WILL NOT sacrifice our God-given constitutionally protected rights. They need to find a way to accomplish keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys (and actually prosecuting criminals when they do violate the law) instead of the answer always being to chip away at more of the good guys’ freedom.

A private individual selling some of his guns to another private individual (with no knowledge or reason to believe the buyer is a felon or mentally ill) doesn’t have the resources to do a NAICS check. They shouldn’t have to register as a FFL just to sell some of their personal property. Forcing them to do so is clearly an infringement and overstep. What is worse is that this is the ATF creating a new rule, not Congress.

To answer your question, you know what they can do? Chicago has double digit gun homicides by gang bangers every week. Instead of fucking with law abiding Americans, why don’t they do some real law enforcement work and bust those thugs engaged in criminal activity? Go confiscate their guns. You have my full support in that.

You argue you understand keeping guns out of the hands of evil or mentally unstable people, but you also argue against the most basic controls that would only marginally make the dealings of legit sellers more complicated. That is incredibly disingenuous. Anything that reduces the number of gray or black market firearms should be celebrated, not castigated as some tyranny aimed to make you fill out some extra pieces of paper.

[Suppressed Poet]

You argue you understand keeping guns out of the hands of evil or mentally unstable people, but you also argue against the most basic controls that would only marginally make the dealings of legit sellers more complicated. That is incredibly disingenuous. Anything that reduces the number of gray or black market firearms should be celebrated, not castigated as some tyranny aimed to make you fill out some extra pieces of paper.

I wipe my ass with your extra pieces of paper. The disarmament of Canada, Australia, and other countries in recent memory is not to be celebrated. Civil war will happen before I and others allow that to happen in this country.

But what did SHM’s question have to do with your ridicule?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR9q0dtu6Edmu9Tf_ytpic-ExdVu4dQ3PLYQ&usqp=CAU

[Seran]

I wipe my ass with your extra pieces of paper. The disarmament of Canada, Australia, and other countries in recent memory is not to be celebrated. Civil war will happen before I and others allow that to happen in this country.

But what did SHM’s question have to do with your ridicule?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR9q0dtu6Edmu9Tf_ytpic-ExdVu4dQ3PLYQ&usqp=CAU

Amazing how countries without permissive gun laws don't have issues with gun violence and murder. It's almost as if making guns easy to obtain has caused the tragic amount of firearm crime in our country.

[Suppressed Poet]

Amazing how countries without permissive gun laws don't have issues with gun violence and murder. It's almost as if making guns easy to obtain has caused the tragic amount of firearm crime in our country.

GTFO and go move to one of those countries. You don’t belong here.

[Parkbandit]

Amazing how countries without permissive gun laws don't have issues with gun violence and murder. It's almost as if making guns easy to obtain has caused the tragic amount of firearm crime in our country.

Amazing how most cities run by Democrats have the most gun violence and murder rates WITH the most restrictive gun laws.

[Seran]

Amazing how most cities run by Democrats have the most gun violence and murder rates WITH the most restrictive gun laws.

I know you're dumb, but the ease of getting firearms in adjacent non permitting or wait list states makes the influx of firearms into population centers pretty obvious, but that doesn't occur to you. Countries with consistent gun controls, import controls, and massive gun penalties don't have gun problems. That is where the United States could have been.

[Parkbandit]

I know you're dumb, but the ease of getting firearms in adjacent non permitting or wait list states makes the influx of firearms into population centers pretty obvious, but that doesn't occur to you. Countries with consistent gun controls, import controls, and massive gun penalties don't have gun problems. That is where the United States could have been.

I know you're dumb... since you were the one who literally said that "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment was about government regulation of guns.

RHoF material.

Fun fact I heard the other day: We are 3rd highest out of like 190 countries for gun murder... but if you take out the top 4 cities with the highest rates.. which coincidently have been run by Democrats for years... we would be like 188th.

Democrat policies have failed this country and they have always been on the wrong side of history. Slavery, suffrage, civil rights, etc... they have always been on the wrong side.

[Suppressed Poet]

I know you're dumb, but the ease of getting firearms in adjacent non permitting or wait list states makes the influx of firearms into population centers pretty obvious, but that doesn't occur to you. Countries with consistent gun controls, import controls, and massive gun penalties don't have gun problems. That is where the United States could have been.

Ukraine is having a serious surging gun violence epidemic right now. It’s just got to be from those people having too much access to firearms. We should disarm them.

[Suppressed Poet]

I know you're dumb... since you were the one who literally said that "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment was about government regulation of guns.

RHoF material.

Fun fact I heard the other day: We are 3rd highest out of like 190 countries for gun murder... but if you take out the top 4 cities with the highest rates.. which coincidently have been run by Democrats for years... we would be like 188th.

Democrat policies have failed this country and they have always been on the wrong side of history. Slavery, suffrage, civil rights, etc... they have always been on the wrong side.

He thinks the 2nd Amendment exists to give power to the federal government to regulate firearms. :rofl:

That is epic level retardation.

[~Rocktar~]

I know you're dumb, but the ease of getting firearms in adjacent non permitting or wait list states makes the influx of firearms into population centers pretty obvious, but that doesn't occur to you. Countries with consistent gun controls, import controls, and massive gun penalties don't have gun problems. That is where the United States could have been.

Except, you retarded piece of infectious cock dribble, those "adjacent non permitting or wait list states" don't seem to have nearly the same problem with gun violence as the cities do. Your argument is both fallacious and at best anecdotal. Try again retard, you are really defending your belt today.

[Methais]

I know you're dumb, but the ease of getting firearms in adjacent non permitting or wait list states makes the influx of firearms into population centers pretty obvious, but that doesn't occur to you. Countries with consistent gun controls, import controls, and massive gun penalties don't have gun problems. That is where the United States could have been.

You think gangs are going to stores in the next town over to legally purchase guns and that's the source of all the inner city gun violence...













































lolololololololololololololol

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I know you're dumb, but the ease of getting firearms in adjacent non permitting or wait list states makes the influx of firearms into population centers pretty obvious, but that doesn't occur to you. Countries with consistent gun controls, import controls, and massive gun penalties don't have gun problems. That is where the United States could have been.

Have you ever tried to buy a gun in a state you are NOT a resident in?

[Methais]

I know you're dumb

There's that projection again.

[kutter]

Have you ever tried to buy a gun in a state you are NOT a resident in?

Yep, it is a royal pain in the ass, and you can never do it with a pistol, only with long arms, and even then, the FFL does not have to let you do it, it is entirely up to them. Most will tell you they will ship it to an FFL in your state and let them process the paperwork, and charge you an additional fee while they are at it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yep, it is a royal pain in the ass, and you can never do it with a pistol, only with long arms, and even then, the FFL does not have to let you do it, it is entirely up to them. Most will tell you they will ship it to an FFL in your state and let them process the paperwork, and charge you an additional fee while they are at it.

Exactly, there are laws and hurdles to purchasing a gun from out of state. It's almost like there are gun purchasing laws and only people who illegally get firearms would be unaccounted for.

[kutter]

If voting and owning firearms are both constitutionally protected rights and you have to provide a government ID to do one, how come you do not for the other one? And yes I realize that some places require an ID to vote, although not all of them are government issued apparently. In some places a student ID will suffice and since illegal migrants can go to school, then in theory they can vote......things that make you go hmmmmm

[Suppressed Poet]

https://i.imgflip.com/7y7lfp.jpg

[Parkbandit]

If voting and owning firearms are both constitutionally protected rights and you have to provide a government ID to do one, how come you do not for the other one? And yes I realize that some places require an ID to vote, although not all of them are government issued apparently. In some places a student ID will suffice and since illegal migrants can go to school, then in theory they can vote......things that make you go hmmmmm

Because if you have to show an ID to vote, you lower the chances of voter fraud...

They need to stop all this bullshit voting for a month and just have a federal holiday on Election Day and vote in person with an ID on a paper ballot. That will stop all this bullshit ballot harvesting, thousands of votes that mysteriously show up after the polls have closed, etc...

[Parkbandit]

https://i.imgflip.com/7y7lfp.jpg

He wouldn't have a good score there either.

[Suppressed Poet]

He wouldn't have a good score there either.

My new Seran hypothesis:

He is a retarded Chinese national. Before they made bots, the CCP just employed English speaking retards like Seran to spread their political ideology & influence on American user dominant internet forums.

[Parkbandit]

My new Seran hypothesis:

He is a retarded Chinese national. Before they made bots, the CCP just employed English speaking retards like Seran to spread their political ideology & influence on American user dominant internet forums.

And he was so fucking retarded, that he picked this forum.

[Seran]

Have you ever tried to buy a gun in a state you are NOT a resident in?

Yup. Was in Las Vegas and bought a .357 that took two weeks to arrive, just had to drive to a nearby Cabella's to pick it up. Just had to fill out a purchase application, background check and show proof of a prior gun safety class. They accepted my hunters license. The guy told me if I could get a Nevada identification I could just walk out of the store with my next purchase. Every state has different laws they subject purchases to.

[Arqueto]

Yup. Was in Las Vegas and bought a .357 that took two weeks to arrive, just had to drive to a nearby Cabella's to pick it up. Just had to fill out a purchase application, background check and show proof of a prior gun safety class. They accepted my hunters license. The guy told me if I could get a Nevada identification I could just walk out of the store with my next purchase. Every state has different laws they subject purchases to.

Okay, Dirty Harry. Sure you did. Suuuuuuure.

[Suppressed Poet]

Yup. Was in Las Vegas and bought a .357 that took two weeks to arrive, just had to drive to a nearby Cabella's to pick it up. Just had to fill out a purchase application, background check and show proof of a prior gun safety class. They accepted my hunters license. The guy told me if I could get a Nevada identification I could just walk out of the store with my next purchase. Every state has different laws they subject purchases to.

You are lying.

You don’t need a gun safety class to purchase a firearm. The state of Nevada does not have any licensing requirements to purchase a firearm. Every FFL dealer is subject to federal ATF compliance with a form 4473 + NICS check.

Edit: I have a Texas LTC (license to carry). We moved to constitutional carry years back, but one of the perks of maintaining a State LTC is that my FFL doesn’t have to call in a NICS check when I present my LTC. I just fill out the 4473, he makes copies of my DL and LTC, and I’m done. I’m guessing every state that issues a license to carry must be the same, but that’s how it works in Texas.

[Methais]

Yup. Was in Las Vegas and bought a .357 that took two weeks to arrive, just had to drive to a nearby Cabella's to pick it up. Just had to fill out a purchase application, background check and show proof of a prior gun safety class. They accepted my hunters license. The guy told me if I could get a Nevada identification I could just walk out of the store with my next purchase. Every state has different laws they subject purchases to.

Let's see it. And write GS4 on your hand so we know it's a real pic because there's a 99.999999% chance you're lying.

[Suppressed Poet]

Let's see it. And write GS4 on your hand so we know it's a real pic because there's a 99.999999% chance you're lying.

The odds of Seran owning and/or firing .357 Magnum is even less than a Trojan Magnum being the correct sized condom for his penis. :rofl:

[Arqueto]

Maybe he identifies as Clint Eastwood. We should be sensitive.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Xjr2hnOHiM/maxresdefault.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Yup. Was in Las Vegas and bought a .357 that took two weeks to arrive, just had to drive to a nearby Cabella's to pick it up. Just had to fill out a purchase application, background check and show proof of a prior gun safety class. They accepted my hunters license. The guy told me if I could get a Nevada identification I could just walk out of the store with my next purchase. Every state has different laws they subject purchases to.

https://gifdb.com/images/high/jennifer-lawrence-cool-yeah-ok-sure-ovb8htr2o002i7u7.gif

Your limp wrist couldn't shoot a 357 without snapping in half... why you gotta lie?

[Methais]

Maybe he identifies as Clint Eastwood. We should be sensitive.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Xjr2hnOHiM/maxresdefault.jpg

Seran's arm would break from a .357, nevermind a .44 mag.

[Suppressed Poet]

Is that what you use to “bag squirrels” Seran?

[Methais]

Is that what you use to “bag squirrels” Seran?

I reckon Seran don't want to tangle with no squirrels.

https://i.imgur.com/anOalxu.png

[Seran]

You are lying.

You don’t need a gun safety class to purchase a firearm. The state of Nevada does not have any licensing requirements to purchase a firearm. Every FFL dealer is subject to federal ATF compliance with a form 4473 + NICS check.

Edit: I have a Texas LTC (license to carry). We moved to constitutional carry years back, but one of the perks of maintaining a State LTC is that my FFL doesn’t have to call in a NICS check when I present my LTC. I just fill out the 4473, he makes copies of my DL and LTC, and I’m done. I’m guessing every state that issues a license to carry must be the same, but that’s how it works in Texas.

Not surprised you are ignorant of laws outside of your state, or ignorant in general. California - does - require a firearm safety permit to purchase a firearm and because I presented California identification, and the firearm was being picked up at a California branch, I was required to present evidence of a firearm safety permit. The fact you can and do something in Texas has jack shit to do with California resident purchasing a firearm.

[Suppressed Poet]

Not surprised you are ignorant of laws outside of your state, or ignorant in general. California - does - require a firearm safety permit to purchase a firearm and because I presented California identification, and the firearm was being picked up at a California branch, I was required to present evidence of a firearm safety permit. The fact you can and do something in Texas has jack shit to do with California resident purchasing a firearm.

I recall you saying before that you no longer reside in California. Also, that isn’t quite the same thing as buying a firearm in another state since the transfer happened in your home state of California. Also, also…California gun laws are bullshit and your California compliant firearms are gayer than a Dylan Mulvaney edition of Bud Light.

https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/attachments/screenshot_20200422-112504_firefox-jpg.4801/

[Seran]

I recall you saying before that you no longer reside in California. Also, that isn’t quite the same thing as buying a firearm in another state since the transfer happened in your home state of California. Also, also…California gun laws are bullshit and your California compliant firearms are gayer than a Dylan Mulvaney edition of Bud Light.

https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/attachments/screenshot_20200422-112504_firefox-jpg.4801/

Blows my mind away you're this dumb. In Nevada if you can't show proof of residency, you can't make a same day purchase. Since my only identification and proof of residency was in California, I could only complete the pickup in my home state. California penal code requires anyone purchasing a handgun to show completion of a firearm safety program, which my hunter's license satisfied. I no longer live in Commiefornia, this is now true.

Your inability to understand the difference in state laws or outright refusal to acknowledge them isn't anyone else's problem but your own.

[Neveragain]

Blows my mind away you're this dumb. In Nevada if you can't show proof of residency, you can't make a same day purchase. Since my only identification and proof of residency was in California, I could only complete the pickup in my home state. California penal code requires anyone purchasing a handgun to show completion of a firearm safety program, which my hunter's license satisfied. I no longer live in Commiefornia, this is now true.

Your inability to understand the difference in state laws or outright refusal to acknowledge them isn't anyone else's problem but your own.

Nobody needs a .357 magnum.

[Seran]

Nobody needs a .357 magnum.

Maybe not, but I wanted it. Just not dumb enough to pretend it's for home defense.

[~Rocktar~]

Nobody needs a .357 magnum.

Yeah you do. Single best one shot stop pistol ever made based on complied FBI data. Nearly 92% of all engagements involving an aggressor that was shot with a .357 ended after one hit. Also, very good for stopping vehicles. Nine millimeter pistols don't do nearly well in single shot stops or in vehicle disables.

[Suppressed Poet]

Blows my mind away you're this dumb. In Nevada if you can't show proof of residency, you can't make a same day purchase. Since my only identification and proof of residency was in California, I could only complete the pickup in my home state. California penal code requires anyone purchasing a handgun to show completion of a firearm safety program, which my hunter's license satisfied. I no longer live in Commiefornia, this is now true.

Your inability to understand the difference in state laws or outright refusal to acknowledge them isn't anyone else's problem but your own.

You’re right that I don’t give a shit about California state laws because I live in a free state.

I suppose then I buy guns out of state all the time by your standards, which isn’t really what we were talking about because the transfer is happening in your home state.

Pro tip: Go here: https://gun.deals + use the search function and put in the manufacturer’s part number or UPC code. It will list in order pretty much all sellers on the internet by price. Buy it online and have it shipped to your local FFL. You can save a boatload of money over the big box retailers like Cabelas.

Tell us more about this .357. What is the make and model? What kind of ammo do you shoot out of it? Is that what you hunt squirrels with? Why did you buy it?

[Suppressed Poet]

Yeah you do. Single best one shot stop pistol ever made based on complied FBI data. Nearly 92% of all engagements involving an aggressor that was shot with a .357 ended after one hit. Also, very good for stopping vehicles. Nine millimeter pistols don't do nearly well in single shot stops or in vehicle disables.

Seran walks into a crowded tranny bar in Commiefornia all pissed off waving his .357 revolver. The music stops. Seran shouts “I got 6 shots of .357 full power magnums, and I want to know which one of you bitches has been sleeping with my boyfriend!” A high pitched voice immediately shouts back “You ain’t got enough bullets for all of us you limp-wristed pussy!” The whole bar erupts in laughter and everyone gets a free round of Bud Light.

Moral of this story is we live in a double stack semiauto world. I agree on everything you said, but I’ll take my compact 9mm with 15+1 rounds of excellent +P 124 grain hollow points and an extra magazine in my pocket any day everyday for anti-personnel performance over a 6 shot .357.

[~Rocktar~]

Seran walks into a crowded tranny bar in Commiefornia all pissed off waving his .357 revolver. The music stops. Seran shouts “I got 6 shots of .357 full power magnums, and I want to know which one of you bitches has been sleeping with my boyfriend!” A high pitched voice immediately shouts back “You ain’t got enough bullets for all of us you limp-wristed pussy!” The whole bar erupts in laughter and everyone gets a free round of Bud Light.

Moral of this story is we live in a double stack semiauto world. I agree on everything you said, but I’ll take my compact 9mm with 15+1 rounds of excellent +P 124 grain hollow points and an extra magazine in my pocket any day everyday for anti-personnel performance over a 6 shot .357.

Hey, my EDC is a sig with 18+1 double stack and spare mag, both loaded with Hornady Critical Defense in 115 gr. Goes in .35 inches diameter, expands to an average of .72 inches and dumps 95% of it's energy in the average human torso. Bonus, same weight and ballistics short range as the cheap metal case Eastern Euro ball ammo so I can afford to practice a bit.

[Suppressed Poet]

Hey, my EDC is a sig with 18+1 double stack and spare mag, both loaded with Hornady Critical Defense in 115 gr. Goes in .35 inches diameter, expands to an average of .72 inches and dumps 95% of it's energy in the average human torso. Bonus, same weight and ballistics short range as the cheap metal case Eastern Euro ball ammo so I can afford to practice a bit.

Nice. My most often EDC is a CZ Rami (semi compact 10+1 9mm) and a CZ PCR (15+1 Glock 19 sized). I’ve always had good luck with Federal HSTs cycling in all my guns. I can empty either of those in a 6 inch circle at 10 yards way faster than my S&W Model 19 with 6 shots of 357 magnums.

[Seran]

You’re right that I don’t give a shit about California state laws because I live in a free state.

I suppose then I buy guns out of state all the time by your standards, which isn’t really what we were talking about because the transfer is happening in your home state.

Pro tip: Go here: https://gun.deals + use the search function and put in the manufacturer’s part number or UPC code. It will list in order pretty much all sellers on the internet by price. Buy it online and have it shipped to your local FFL. You can save a boatload of money over the big box retailers like Cabelas.

Tell us more about this .357. What is the make and model? What kind of ammo do you shoot out of it? Is that what you hunt squirrels with? Why did you buy it?

The point is, it is possible to buy firearms out of state depending on where you're adjacent. Nevada is a lot more permissable, I imagine Arizona even more still, but being the law abiding citizen I am I'd rather pay more at a legit dealer than have the stress of transporting across state lines. Call me a pussy or whatever, it's a matter of choice. But you, me and other people staying above board or at worst grey marketing 'collectibles' isn't the issue. It's people willing to sell weapons committing evil acts.

If there is anything I would assume you could get behind, is preserving an unadulterated right for good people by focusing control and disarmament on gang bangers, armed robbers, and murderers

[Suppressed Poet]

The point is, it is possible to buy firearms out of state depending on where you're adjacent. Nevada is a lot more permissable, I imagine Arizona even more still, but being the law abiding citizen I am I'd rather pay more at a legit dealer than have the stress of transporting across state lines. Call me a pussy or whatever, it's a matter of choice. But you, me and other people staying above board or at worst grey marketing 'collectibles' isn't the issue. It's people willing to sell weapons committing evil acts.

If there is anything I would assume you could get behind, is preserving an unadulterated right for good people by focusing control and disarmament on gang bangers, armed robbers, and murderers

I can totally get behind that. Just don’t infringe upon the rights of good people to keep and bear arms. And to be crystal clear about what I mean when I say infringe, I mean anything that would make it more difficult / cumbersome / tedious / hinder in any way good people’s ability to keep and bear arms in the process of focusing on those bad people.

[Realk]

Bubba shot the juke box last night, said it played a sad song that made him cry. He went to his truck and got a .45.. Bubba shot the juke box last night.

[Parkbandit]

The point is, it is possible to buy firearms out of state depending on where you're adjacent. Nevada is a lot more permissable, I imagine Arizona even more still, but being the law abiding citizen I am I'd rather pay more at a legit dealer than have the stress of transporting across state lines. Call me a pussy or whatever, it's a matter of choice. But you, me and other people staying above board or at worst grey marketing 'collectibles' isn't the issue. It's people willing to sell weapons committing evil acts.

If there is anything I would assume you could get behind, is preserving an unadulterated right for good people by focusing control and disarmament on gang bangers, armed robbers, and murderers

Wait.. so you complied with the gun laws in California, one of the most restrictive gun law states in the country, and your "point" was that you can buy firearms out of state?

It really blows your "ITS TEH SURROUNDING STATE'S THAT CAUSE ALL OUR PROBLEM'S!" argument that you made this story up for.

Fucking retard.

[Methais]

Maybe not, but I wanted it. Just not dumb enough to pretend it's for home defense.

You should turn in your pretend .357.

If it saves even just one life, then it's worth it. Right?

[Methais]

Wait.. so you complied with the gun laws in California, one of the most restrictive gun law states in the country, and your "point" was that you can buy firearms out of state?

It really blows your "ITS TEH SURROUNDING STATE'S THAT CAUSE ALL OUR PROBLEM'S!" argument that you made this story up for.

Fucking retard.

+1 for Seran accurate apostrophe use.

[kutter]

Hey, my EDC is a sig with 18+1 double stack and spare mag, both loaded with Hornady Critical Defense in 115 gr. Goes in .35 inches diameter, expands to an average of .72 inches and dumps 95% of it's energy in the average human torso. Bonus, same weight and ballistics short range as the cheap metal case Eastern Euro ball ammo so I can afford to practice a bit.

My EDC is my P365, it is easy to conceal in an IWB, but when I am feeling like I need a little more, I carry my P239 in 357 SIG, IWB. It is a fair amount heavier but with the SIG hollow points, I am not worried about being out gunned. The only down side to my P239 is no optic on it, have to shoot old skool with it. Before my 365, my EDC was my P320 X-Carry, and in the winter I still sometimes carry that since it is lighter than my 239 with a larger capacity and it has an optic. But I would need to buy new pants to carry the 320 IWB so it is always OWB, need big covering to hide it so only a winter gun, but I am fat so it is much easier to carry a larger pistol hidden.

[Suppressed Poet]

My EDC is my P365, it is easy to conceal in an IWB, but when I am feeling like I need a little more, I carry my P239 in 357 SIG, IWB. It is a fair amount heavier but with the SIG hollow points, I am not worried about being out gunned. The only down side to my P239 is no optic on it, have to shoot old skool with it. Before my 365, my EDC was my P320 X-Carry, and in the winter I still sometimes carry that since it is lighter than my 239 with a larger capacity and it has an optic. But I would need to buy new pants to carry the 320 IWB so it is always OWB, need big covering to hide it so only a winter gun, but I am fat so it is much easier to carry a larger pistol hidden.

Most people I know carry a P365. I’ve had the opportunity to shoot one several times, and really like them with the 12 round extended mags that allow a full finger grip. My lazy summer pocket carry is a Sig P938 which is a similar size but it’s like a tiny 1911. I carry that in a pocket holster with the extended mag (only 7 rounds because it’s single stack). I keep saying to myself I should retire that one and upgrade to a P365 for my pocket rocket, but haven’t got around to it.

The CZs I carry have Alien Gear hybrid holsters (cloak tuck I think it’s called?) and carry them in the 4:00 position IWB. I’ve tried appendix carry and all the other ways, but that 4:00 position IWB is what agrees with my body type and lifestyle. I always carry a spare mag in my front left pocket. I also have on me at all times a little slim high lumen flashlight & a little flipper pocket knife that I beat the shit out of.

On pistol optics, I have a full sized IWI Masada that is equipped with a Streamlight TLR7A flashlight & Vortex red dot. That’s my primary home defense pistol. At first I really didn’t like the red dot because the dot jumps around & I’ve trained all my life to focus on the front sight. It’s weird to me to focus on the target and allow the dot to superimpose on it. The more I practice with it though the more I like it. I’m still faster with iron sights from the draw, but the red dot is great for accuracy at longer distances and rapid follow-up shots. For a self defense carry gun though, I just don’t perceive a lot of benefit for me in pistol optics.

[Neveragain]

Yeah you do. Single best one shot stop pistol ever made based on complied FBI data. Nearly 92% of all engagements involving an aggressor that was shot with a .357 ended after one hit. Also, very good for stopping vehicles. Nine millimeter pistols don't do nearly well in single shot stops or in vehicle disables.

I was being facetious, though, for the average person that's not handling a handgun on a regular basis a .357 is too much gun. To this day the shotgun is the best home defense weapon for the average homeowner, cheap, multifunctional, much easier to use, plenty of stopping power and less risk to downrange damages.

Also

Shooting skeet is 100x more fun than shooting targets with a rifle or handgun.

[Suppressed Poet]

I was being facetious, though, for the average person that's not handling a handgun on a regular basis a .357 is too much gun. To this day the shotgun is the best home defense weapon for the average homeowner, cheap, multifunctional, much easier to use, plenty of stopping power and less risk to downrange damages.

Can’t argue that a good shotgun is an excellent choice for home defense, but my primary family use weapon is an AR-15. Why? With the right ammunition it dumps all of its energy into whatever it hits first and over penetration is less of an issue than either a pistol or shotgun. My oldest daughter can’t handle the recoil of a 12 gauge but can easily & accurately fire an AR. The only real downside with the AR is the manual of arms is slightly more complex, but with a touch of training almost anyone can use it effectively.

There is always 38 special for the limp wristed like Seran. Honestly for California and all their BS high cap restrictions & such, it’s not the worst weapon by a long shot. A revolver chambered for 357 is quite versatile.

Edit: I collect and prefer AKs chambered in 7.62x39, but common steel cased bimetal ammo is overkill in penetration. If I was a gangbanger doing drive-bys though and didn’t worry about what’s behind the target, it’s the perfect weapon.

[~Rocktar~]

I was being facetious, though, for the average person that's not handling a handgun on a regular basis a .357 is too much gun. To this day the shotgun is the best home defense weapon for the average homeowner, cheap, multifunctional, much easier to use, plenty of stopping power and less risk to downrange damages.[/Quote

The shotgun is a terrible home defense weapon. Low ammo count, it doesn't spread like Hollywood portrays, at home defense ranges, you need to aim just like a rifle or pistol and you likely have less shots to hit with. More recoil than a pistol and most rifles makes them less controllable. A shotgun with a reasonable ammo count is heavier than a rifle or pistol compounding the controllability issue. Good sized buckshot has the same penetration as a pistol if not more considering modern self defense bullets, slugs blow through people and walls as well or better than other weapons. The only advantages to a shotgun are the cost, variable ammo available and the reputation. Also, most shotguns don't have to be registered in those shitball states that require registration.

I would rather have 30 rounds of good m855 or other suitable ammo in my AR-15 with a 16" barrel along with a second mag clamped to the first to deal with an attacker than my 12 guage police with 9 + 1 rounds for about the same weight.

[quote]Also

Shooting skeet is 100x more fun than shooting targets with a rifle or handgun.

Personal preference.

[Suppressed Poet]

Shotgun does have advantages. Terminal ballistics of 00 buckshot is absolutely devastating. It’s roughly the equivalent of getting hit with a 9mm bullet 9 times at once (or however many pellets there are per shot). It’s true that the spread at short distances is narrow but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It does have capacity limitations but 5+ rounds commonly found in pump or autoloading shotguns is in almost all cases more than enough for any home defense situation. If I had to be in a gun fight, which I hope I never do, I’d prefer a shotgun (or almost any long gun) over a pistol.

Really though, just have something & train with it. I’d shy away from single shot or double barrel shotguns, but it’s better than a pointy stick if that’s all you got.

M855 is a halfway decent penetrator but for terminal ballistic performance against unarmored human targets (99+% likely a home invader won’t being wearing any kind of armor) and limiting over penetration concerns I would stick with good old M193 55 grain.

[Seran]

I can totally get behind that. Just don’t infringe upon the rights of good people to keep and bear arms. And to be crystal clear about what I mean when I say infringe, I mean anything that would make it more difficult / cumbersome / tedious / hinder in any way good people’s ability to keep and bear arms in the process of focusing on those bad people.

See, but that's an unreasonable expectation. The commission of gun crimes come in two flavors, the prosecuted and unprosecuted. A criminal is either caught, or uncaught. The common denominator is someone has to have a gun to commit a gun crime. Do suppress the availability of firearms to reduce instances of their being used as an accessory in a crime, or just wait until a crime is committed and make a long term prohibition of ownership a repercussion..? We can agree crime is the problem, but I think reducing the lethality by restricting firearms is the solution. What do you think is the solution that doesn't affect innocent owners?

[Suppressed Poet]

See, but that's an unreasonable expectation. The commission of gun crimes come in two flavors, the prosecuted and unprosecuted. A criminal is either caught, or uncaught. The common denominator is someone has to have a gun to commit a gun crime. Do suppress the availability of firearms to reduce instances of their being used as an accessory in a crime, or just wait until a crime is committed and make a long term prohibition of ownership a repercussion..? We can agree crime is the problem, but I think reducing the lethality by restricting firearms is the solution. What do you think is the solution that doesn't affect innocent owners?

The solution is to address the real problem, which is people. Criminals must be removed from society. We must treat the mentally ill and address the root cause of the affliction. We must empower the good honorable people to fight the injustices of tyranny & evil.

Tell me Seran, by California law how many bullets can a murder have in their gun? How long does a mugger have to wait to by law to acquire their weapon? What kind of laws do evil men follow that will prevent them from acting upon their foul intent? There are more guns in this country than people. You, me, nor anyone else can’t do anything about that. But even if you got your wish and all the guns vanished, would we still have the same criminals? You think just because those people don’t have a gun they can’t hurt people effectively by alternative means?

Evil prevails when good men do nothing. All your gun control laws do is put the good guys at a disadvantage to the bad guys. We need every advantage that can be afforded. God created man. Samuel Colt made man equal.

[Seran]

The solution is to address the real problem, which is people. Criminals must be removed from society. We must treat the mentally ill and address the root cause of the affliction. We must empower the good honorable people to fight the injustices of tyranny & evil.

Tell me Seran, by California law how many bullets can a murder have in their gun? How long does a mugger have to wait to by law to acquire their weapon? What kind of laws do evil men follow that will prevent them from acting upon their foul intent? There are more guns in this country than people. You, me, nor anyone else can’t do anything about that. But even if you got your wish and all the guns vanished, would we still have the same criminals? You think just because those people don’t have a gun they can’t hurt people effectively by alternative means?

Evil prevails when good men do nothing. All your gun control laws do is put the good guys at a disadvantage to the bad guys. We need every advantage that can be afforded. God created man. Samuel Colt made man equal.

505 people, per 100,000 population. That is the per capita incarceration rate in the United States, number two behind Cuba at 510 and just ahead of Panama at 478. I'm sure that number has worsened since the data set I viewed, but the US has over 2 million prisoners and we still have a gun problem. If we incarcerate as many people per capita as corrupt nearly third world regimes and we still have a worsening gun problem, then simply 'removing them from society' isn't a solution.

Realistically, it's both. Stricter prison standards, firearm ownership bans for criminals, making it a class 1 felony to sell a gun to someone banned that also carries with it a ownership ban for the seller.. Then we start to see progress. Guns haven't leveled the playing field, that is a misnomer proven by those countries without our gun problems, that couldn't be more obvious.

[Suppressed Poet]

505 people, per 100,000 population. That is the per capita incarceration rate in the United States, number two behind Cuba at 510 and just ahead of Panama at 478. I'm sure that number has worsened since the data set I viewed, but the US has over 2 million prisoners and we still have a gun problem. If we incarcerate as many people per capita as corrupt nearly third world regimes and we still have a worsening gun problem, then simply 'removing them from society' isn't a solution.

Realistically, it's both. Stricter prison standards, firearm ownership bans for criminals, making it a class 1 felony to sell a gun to someone banned that also carries with it a ownership ban for the seller.. Then we start to see progress. Guns haven't leveled the playing field, that is a misnomer proven by those countries without our gun problems, that couldn't be more obvious.

Perhaps what we can find common ground on is to find an alternative to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders as that has greatly contributed to the overcrowding of our prisons. I also am a strong advocate for community outreach programs. Education and a loving nuclear family can break the cycle of poverty & crime.

Those countries that don’t have gun violence problems have knife violence problems. Guns are not some evil sentient object that shoot people all on their own. Taking away guns would not solve the problem of evil. A gun is absolutely the great equalizer. A 100 pound woman with a firearm and the small amount of knowledge of how to use it can effectively defend herself against a 300 pound man hell-bent on raping her.

[Methais]

We can agree crime is the problem

Every major city is a democrat run crime ridden shithole and those are all where gun crimes are the worst despite having the strictest gun laws.

I don't expect you to be able to put 2+2 together here, so perhaps ask your mom to help. It's the least she could do for society.

[Seran]

Perhaps what we can find common ground on is to find an alternative to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders as that has greatly contributed to the overcrowding of our prisons. I also am a strong advocate for community outreach programs. Education and a loving nuclear family can break the cycle of poverty & crime.

Those countries that don’t have gun violence problems have knife violence problems. Guns are not some evil sentient object that shoot people all on their own. Taking away guns would not solve the problem of evil. A gun is absolutely the great equalizer. A 100 pound woman with a firearm and the small amount of knowledge of how to use it can effectively defend herself against a 300 pound man hell-bent on raping her.

Part of the prison overcrowding problem is the reluctance of states to use the death penalty due to the ridiculous number of legal challenges to every option for execution available. Someone is sentenced to death under the laws of the state should be put down, not given lifetime incarceration. I'm really surprised you're arguing community outreach and drug diversion for non violent crimes, that is one of the issues that plagues major Metropolitan areas, especially in California. What stops a person from committing crime it there is no punishment that makes a lasting impression?

A hundred pound woman protecting herself from a rapist, really? Provided she has enough awareness of the impending crime to draw a firearm and use it to protect herself, what will she do if the criminal also had a gun and disabled her first? You speak of overwhelming force as a means of diversion, but that is only effective so long as it can be deployed effectively. We play a game with very effective ambush mechanics, people employ the same subterfuge or stalking to keep their victims unaware before they strike. A gun out of hand is no use at all, and just as likely it's going to wind up in the possession of the assailant.

A society where criminals are locked up, those who are reformed actually reformed, and the fear of retribution so great that non mentally imbalanced people will think twice. That is an ideal society. Ours is suffering from drug addiction, overtly generous welfare benefits going beyond basic food, shelter and health-care, and a system of justice being neutered by the privileged few who don't understand what a bane free roaming, gun toting recitivists are.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

what a bane free roaming, gun toting recitivists are.

but but but criminals aren't legally allowed to have guns

[Suppressed Poet]

Part of the prison overcrowding problem is the reluctance of states to use the death penalty due to the ridiculous number of legal challenges to every option for execution available. Someone is sentenced to death under the laws of the state should be put down, not given lifetime incarceration. I'm really surprised you're arguing community outreach and drug diversion for non violent crimes, that is one of the issues that plagues major Metropolitan areas, especially in California. What stops a person from committing crime it there is no punishment that makes a lasting impression?

A hundred pound woman protecting herself from a rapist, really? Provided she has enough awareness of the impending crime to draw a firearm and use it to protect herself, what will she do if the criminal also had a gun and disabled her first? You speak of overwhelming force as a means of diversion, but that is only effective so long as it can be deployed effectively. We play a game with very effective ambush mechanics, people employ the same subterfuge or stalking to keep their victims unaware before they strike. A gun out of hand is no use at all, and just as likely it's going to wind up in the possession of the assailant.

A society where criminals are locked up, those who are reformed actually reformed, and the fear of retribution so great that non mentally imbalanced people will think twice. That is an ideal society. Ours is suffering from drug addiction, overtly generous welfare benefits going beyond basic food, shelter and health-care, and a system of justice being neutered by the privileged few who don't understand what a bane free roaming, gun toting recitivists are.

I’m pro death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but I don’t think that has anything to do with prison overcrowding. Only a small amount of people are sentenced to death. I hear you on the legal challenges, but not sure what alternative there is. People are afforded those legal challenges for good reason, and we as a society should be absolutely certain that irreversible action of a death sentence is justified.

I want to be clear that when I say alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders I mean just that. We need an alternative to prison and the only thing in scope is truly non-violent drug offenses. We must enforce laws and prosecute criminals in other crimes, especially violence. Community outreach programs are not a substitute for law enforcement, but they are a great tool to make positive changes.

Going back to the 100 pound woman vs the 300 pound man, you are correct there is no sure fire guarantee that she will prevail, criminals get the advantage of the element of surprise, and criminals have weapons too. A firearm and adequate training gives her the best chance to defend herself in suv a situation though. Why would you want to deny a person the best tool for the job to protect themselves? I just don’t understand that line of thought. Citizens that choose to take accountability for their own defense and those of others should be empowered to do so, not hindered by our own government.

[Suppressed Poet]

https://youtu.be/zhL6sB-7bPU?si=l_aYRG0siZzds5cU

[Seran]

I’m pro death penalty for the most heinous of crimes, but I don’t think that has anything to do with prison overcrowding. Only a small amount of people are sentenced to death. I hear you on the legal challenges, but not sure what alternative there is. People are afforded those legal challenges for good reason, and we as a society should be absolutely certain that irreversible action of a death sentence is justified.

I want to be clear that when I say alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders I mean just that. We need an alternative to prison and the only thing in scope is truly non-violent drug offenses. We must enforce laws and prosecute criminals in other crimes, especially violence. Community outreach programs are not a substitute for law enforcement, but they are a great tool to make positive changes.

Indefinite legal challenges are the problem, involving tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers to re-litigate decided issues over and over again, regardless of merit. I believe that to be a travesty of justice. 2,331 people on death row as of 01/2023, at a $60k-$70k cost per inmate? That is money which could be better spent.

I like the idea of community intervention, in theory. In reality, is is the responsibility of the family to bear the cost of wayward individuals, or society as a whole to subsidize their misadventures? If it's the latter, then make subsidized rehabilitation a one time drug diversion program with a suspended sentence. If they fail, stay on incarceration is lifted and they're left to clean up behind bars. Community still pays for it, but the individual also faces just punishment for their lack of personal responsibility.


Going back to the 100 pound woman vs the 300 pound man, you are correct there is no sure fire guarantee that she will prevail, criminals get the advantage of the element of surprise, and criminals have weapons too. A firearm and adequate training gives her the best chance to defend herself in suv a situation though. Why would you want to deny a person the best tool for the job to protect themselves? I just don’t understand that line of thought. Citizens that choose to take accountability for their own defense and those of others should be empowered to do so, not hindered by our own government.

There is no reason to believe that three hundred pound man wouldn't have just as easy a time using a firearm as that hundred pound woman, only he has the element of surprise and likely premeditation. In that scenario, woman suffers and the man now has two guns. In the scenario where she has adequate time to defend herself and her assailant isn't equally as armed, yeah being armed is a benefit. However, reality shows us that far more unequal situations occur where an assailant causes harm by nature of being armed.

I would that anyone be able to protect themselves from evil, but the scenario outside of a home where barriers can allow adequate time to arm and prepare, personal armaments are FAR less likely to be overwhelming benefit. Universal right to home protection, absolutely. Open carry with a license, by non criminal people? Sure. Imo, open carry is more likely to deter an assailant. Unlicensed concealed carry, no.

Using my above rational, if we have an open carry society, I would want criminals who arm and harm to face sentences that are so heavy handed that others will think twice about doing it. For those mentally unstable people, a universal background check, red flag system, and waiting period for first time buyers I believe would deter their armament.

[Methais]

Indefinite legal challenges are the problem, involving tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers to re-litigate decided issues over and over again, regardless of merit. I believe that to be a travesty of justice. 2,331 people on death row as of 01/2023, at a $60k-$70k cost per inmate? That is money which could be better spent.

I like the idea of community intervention, in theory. In reality, is is the responsibility of the family to bear the cost of wayward individuals, or society as a whole to subsidize their misadventures? If it's the latter, then make subsidized rehabilitation a one time drug diversion program with a suspended sentence. If they fail, stay on incarceration is lifted and they're left to clean up behind bars. Community still pays for it, but the individual also faces just punishment for their lack of personal responsibility.



There is no reason to believe that three hundred pound man wouldn't have just as easy a time using a firearm as that hundred pound woman, only he has the element of surprise and likely premeditation. In that scenario, woman suffers and the man now has two guns. In the scenario where she has adequate time to defend herself and her assailant isn't equally as armed, yeah being armed is a benefit. However, reality shows us that far more unequal situations occur where an assailant causes harm by nature of being armed.

I would that anyone be able to protect themselves from evil, but the scenario outside of a home where barriers can allow adequate time to arm and prepare, personal armaments are FAR less likely to be overwhelming benefit. Universal right to home protection, absolutely. Open carry with a license, by non criminal people? Sure. Imo, open carry is more likely to deter an assailant. Unlicensed concealed carry, no.

Using my above rational, if we have an open carry society, I would want criminals who arm and harm to face sentences that are so heavy handed that others will think twice about doing it. For those mentally unstable people, a universal background check, red flag system, and waiting period for first time buyers I believe would deter their armament.

Confirmed that Seran wants women to be defenseless against rapists.

Don't be mad at women because none of them will let you touch them.

[Suppressed Poet]

There is no reason to believe that three hundred pound man wouldn't have just as easy a time using a firearm as that hundred pound woman, only he has the element of surprise and likely premeditation. In that scenario, woman suffers and the man now has two guns. In the scenario where she has adequate time to defend herself and her assailant isn't equally as armed, yeah being armed is a benefit. However, reality shows us that far more unequal situations occur where an assailant causes harm by nature of being armed.

I would that anyone be able to protect themselves from evil, but the scenario outside of a home where barriers can allow adequate time to arm and prepare, personal armaments are FAR less likely to be overwhelming benefit. Universal right to home protection, absolutely. Open carry with a license, by non criminal people? Sure. Imo, open carry is more likely to deter an assailant. Unlicensed concealed carry, no.

Using my above rational, if we have an open carry society, I would want criminals who arm and harm to face sentences that are so heavy handed that others will think twice about doing it. For those mentally unstable people, a universal background check, red flag system, and waiting period for first time buyers I believe would deter their armament.

We’re getting off track here. There are countless examples throughout history where a weaker armed good guy prevented death and/or serious bodily harm from one or more stronger assailants. I don’t think I really need to explain why having a gun helps to level the playing field.

I have a license to carry but it’s a relic of the past. If you are not a convicted felon, fugitive of justice, or proven to be mentally unfit to posses a firearm it’s not the government’s job to interfere or dictate what firearms a person chooses.

There are pros and cons to open carry vs concealed carry:

Open carry is typically much more comfortable and you can typically draw much faster. It may deter criminal activity as you pointed out, but it also makes you a target. Thugs love stealing firearms and if they are committed to their crime they are going to take out the armed person first. In addition, it’s s reality of the world we live in that some people absolutely freak out if they see an everyday citizen open carrying a firearm in public places. You really should have a good active retention holster (like what cops have) so that you are not easily disarmed. There are countless videos of criminals walking up to someone open carrying with a simple passive retention holster, pulling the gun out from the holster, and running off or worse using it against that person.

Concealed carry is less comfortable and typically slower on the draw. You can’t conceal carry a rifle (well they have folding ones that fit in a backpack, but generally speaking). It often gives the person carrying concealed the element of surprise. The whole idea of concealed carry as a deterrent to crime is that you never know if an ordinary citizen is armed or not. It doesn’t freak out Karens at the grocery store.

I choose to conceal carry, but believe either is viable. Let people decide for themselves if they want to conceal carry, open carry, or not at all.

[kutter]

While I am not a fan of open carry, for the reasons already stated, if someone is open carrying and has trained to do so, they are a pretty major deterrent to anyone with nefarious ideas. I would prefer someone that trains in open carry over someone that does not train in concealed. To Poet's point, if one is going to open carry then you MUST use an active retention holster, my go to is a GLS holster from Safariland. I have some of their ALS holsters and for range training they are just fine but I do not even have to think about releasing the pistol with a GLS if my grip is correct.

[Seran]

Second Amendment rights.. protecting your ability to shoot someone for a parking place.


Brooklyn parking dispute leads to double shooting at Home Depot

A dispute over a parking spot in the central Brooklyn Home Depot erupted in gunfire, leaving a woman shot in the head and her boyfriend badly wounded, according to witnesses and police.

The shooting took place in the parking lot of the hardware store’s Bedford-Stuyvesant location shortly after noon Saturday, according to the NYPD.

“The guy pulls on the side of them, he starts shooting at them,” Stacee Glenn, 40, said. Glenn said the male victim shouted, “I gave him the parking spot!”

The couple –– believed to be in their mid-20s –– raced out of the parking lot in their white Hyndai Sonata after the shooting, stopping several blocks away at the intersection of Nostrand and Myrtle Aves. to call for help.

The woman was slumped over and nonresponsive.

“He stopped and said ‘my girlfriend and I had been shot’,” Glenn said. “I guess he was trying to bring her to the hospital.”

Yadelyn Pena, 14, told the Daily News she was outside the Duane Reade on Nostrand and Myrtle when the car came to a stop.

“I guess he realized he was too late, so he jumped outside the car and called for help,” she said, adding that the man had wounds to his leg and his back.

“I was like, what’s the matter? What’s wrong? And he was like, ‘my girlfriend, look,’” Pena said.

“And I look in the car and there’s blood dripping from her head.” she added. “I saw her.”

“The guy in the parking lot – he wanted my parking spot,” Pena recalled the man saying. “I gave it to him and he started shooting at us!”

Three bullet holes could be seen in the Hyundai’s driver’s side door, which was facing the wrong direction on Nostrand Ave. Outside the front passenger door, a brown paper Home Depot b

https://news.yahoo.com/brooklyn-parking-dispute-leads-double-185600441.html

[Parkbandit]

Second Amendment rights.. protecting your ability to shoot someone for a parking place.

That's exactly why we have the Second Amendment... I mean, if you are a full blow retard.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Second Amendment rights.. protecting your ability to shoot someone for a parking place.

All told from one perspective with literally no facts to back it up. Could be crazy guy with a gun, or more than likely, something happened that escalated to an armed person teaching two idiots FAFO.

[Realk]

You would have to have been born yesterday if you think that was really over a parking spot. Girl was probably dating both of them or something.

[Methais]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0LV8WfxLNM

[Suppressed Poet]

Second Amendment rights.. protecting your ability to shoot someone for a parking place.

“Nobody is coming to take away your guns!” Yeah that didn’t age well.

https://i.imgflip.com/7yknjn.jpg

[Methais]

“Nobody is coming to take away your guns!” Yeah that didn’t age well.

https://i.imgflip.com/7yknjn.jpg

Can't wait to see what sort of mental gymnastics Seran pulls to try and justify this one.

Even David Hogg is calling this out.

https://i.imgur.com/NsMpJNd.png

[Suppressed Poet]

Can't wait to see what sort of mental gymnastics Seran pulls to try and justify this one.

Even David Hogg is calling this out.

https://i.imgur.com/NsMpJNd.png

Open carry protests began yesterday. LEOs are not enforcing the governor’s illegal mandate.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/gun-owners-rally-in-old-town-to-protest-public-health-order/

[Methais]

Open carry protests began yesterday. LEOs are not enforcing the governor’s illegal mandate.

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/gun-owners-rally-in-old-town-to-protest-public-health-order/

The governor needs to be held accountable with the highest amount of pwnage allowable by law.

Pretty sure this is just a test to see how many Serans will obediently nod their heads and agree that it's for our own good.

[Parkbandit]

Can't wait to see what sort of mental gymnastics Seran pulls to try and justify this one.

Even David Hogg is calling this out.

https://i.imgur.com/NsMpJNd.png

WTF?

Is this the same David Hogg that earlier this year said no one has a right to a firearm because you are not a militia?

This has to be fake.

[Methais]

WTF?

Is this the same David Hogg that earlier this year said no one has a right to a firearm because you are not a militia?

This has to be fake.

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1700601787605266779?s=20

[Parkbandit]

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1700601787605266779?s=20

How the hell can someone be so retarded about the Constitution 5-6 months ago, and be normal today?

Makes no sense. His account must have been hacked... probably by white supremacists who are NOT Democrats this time.

[Suppressed Poet]

How the hell can someone be so retarded about the Constitution 5-6 months ago, and be normal today?

Makes no sense. His account must have been hacked... probably by white supremacists who are NOT Democrats this time.

Even that leftist asshole activist understands this is completely unconstitutional & will backfire badly. Many on the left have already denounced the governor’s action, so he is probably just jumping on the bandwagon.

If we allow a governor to arbitrarily suspend God-given constitutionally protected rights on the whim of an authoritarian declaration of a health emergency, we’re all in deep shit. This isn’t just a gun issue.

[Suppressed Poet]

Bernalillo County Sheriff rejects public health order on gun possession

https://youtu.be/TGqv9OJEqx0?si=EpjHzq698KyAPnAg

[Methais]

Bernalillo County Sheriff rejects public health order on gun possession

https://youtu.be/TGqv9OJEqx0?si=EpjHzq698KyAPnAg

In before Seran demands he be indicted for trying to overthrow the government.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm down with The ATHF.

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.eGWOJecy8p-w4DBmG33FAgHaID?pid=ImgDet&rs=1

Also, I can't believe how on-topic one of the first Bing image results was.

Also-also, let us not forget Earl Simmons' view on the matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRU6cyb9QuE

[Suppressed Poet]

I'm down with The ATHF.

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.eGWOJecy8p-w4DBmG33FAgHaID?pid=ImgDet&rs=1

Also, I can't believe how on-topic one of the first Bing image results was.

Also-also, let us not forget Earl Simmons' view on the matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRU6cyb9QuE

That song was a banger!

“Shit, the cops hit her, and I know they ain't gon' leave her” - everyone knows the ATF will shoot your bitches.

[Parkbandit]

“Nobody is coming to take away your guns!” Yeah that didn’t age well.

https://i.imgflip.com/7yknjn.jpg

Every single Republican should be pushing this decision by her in every single election commercial. She's not a super leftist lunatic.. she's an establishment Democrat. This is their game: Declare an emergency and change any law that you don't like in the name of said "emergency".

This will be thrown out by any court... and to be fair, she should be thrown out as well.

First covid, then climate change and 2nd amendment.. make the Democrats pay for their stupidity.

[~Rocktar~]

How the hell can someone be so retarded about the Constitution 5-6 months ago, and be normal today?

Makes no sense. His account must have been hacked... probably by white supremacists who are NOT Democrats this time.

He copy pasted someone else's post.

All this is a stunt for her to earn cred with anti-gun fucks AND to provide a thermometer for shitbags like Newsome, the Biden admin and others to test the political wind.

And yes she needs to be arrested and criminally prosecuted for civil rights violations on the Federal level. Like IMMEDIATELY.

Here is a decent take on the whole mess.

https://youtu.be/rHAEPU8SZDo?si=mVwM9EsTkNa3L3hC

[Seran]

“Nobody is coming to take away your guns!” Yeah that didn’t age well.

Oh, did the governor of some state order that all the guns in her state be confiscated? No? Ah well. The only thing more entertaining than watching the Right blow a gasket over her emergency order, is the remarkably few people in the left who don't believe this won't soon be stayed by a NM federal judge.

[Parkbandit]

Oh, did the governor of some state order that all the guns in her state be confiscated? No? Ah well. The only thing more entertaining than watching the Right blow a gasket over her emergency order, is the remarkably few people in the left who don't believe this won't soon be stayed by a NM federal judge.

It's Unconstitutional. EVEN David Hogg knows this.. (how he knows this, I have no idea.. maybe a lucky guess?)

She was sworn to uphold the Constitution and she has opened herself up for removal from office.

But to your "point"... no this isn't confiscation of all guns.. this is just the first step in a long series of steps.. much like what they tried to do with abortion. Law says 12 weeks... what if we pushed this to 15? OK, now 18. Now 21. Now 23. Now it's "YOU CAN'T TELL A WOMAN TO DO WITH HER BODY! SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO ABORT ANYTHING SHE WANTS TO ABORT UP TO AND INCLUDING BIRTH!"

It's sort of the game you sick fucks are doing with trannies. If normal people just let you continue to mutilate and chemically castrate children in the name of inclusion and fairness.. then obviously children are allowed to make life altering decisions. And if they can make decisions like that, then who are we to say they can't make the decision to have sex with an adult!

We know your game.. we are just not playing it.

Constitutional rights cannot be arbitrarily taken away... even during an "emergency".

[Methais]

Oh, did the governor of some state order that all the guns in her state be confiscated? No? Ah well. The only thing more entertaining than watching the Right blow a gasket over her emergency order, is the remarkably few people in the left who don't believe this won't soon be stayed by a NM federal judge.

Never thought I'd run into someone who's so much of a cuck that he makes David Hogg seem based in comparison, but here we are, and I can't say I'm surprised.

What's it like being such a little bitch 24/7?

[Methais]

It's Unconstitutional. EVEN David Hogg knows this.. (how he knows this, I have no idea.. maybe a lucky guess?)

She was sworn to uphold the Constitution and she has opened herself up for removal from office.

But to your "point"... no this isn't confiscation of all guns.. this is just the first step in a long series of steps.. much like what they tried to do with abortion. Law says 12 weeks... what if we pushed this to 15? OK, now 18. Now 21. Now 23. Now it's "YOU CAN'T TELL A WOMAN TO DO WITH HER BODY! SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO ABORT ANYTHING SHE WANTS TO ABORT UP TO AND INCLUDING BIRTH!"

It's sort of the game you sick fucks are doing with trannies. If normal people just let you continue to mutilate and chemically castrate children in the name of inclusion and fairness.. then obviously children are allowed to make life altering decisions. And if they can make decisions like that, then who are we to say they can't make the decision to have sex with an adult!

We know your game.. we are just not playing it.

Constitutional rights cannot be arbitrarily taken away... even during an "emergency".

30 DAYS TO FLATTEN THE GUN VIOLENCE CURVE!!!!!!!!11

[Suppressed Poet]

Oh, did the governor of some state order that all the guns in her state be confiscated? No? Ah well. The only thing more entertaining than watching the Right blow a gasket over her emergency order, is the remarkably few people in the left who don't believe this won't soon be stayed by a NM federal judge.

Fuck around & find out.

[~Rocktar~]

30 DAYS TO FLATTEN THE GUN VIOLENCE CURVE!!!!!!!!11

^^ This is correct.

[Parkbandit]

30 DAYS TO FLATTEN THE GUN VIOLENCE CURVE!!!!!!!!11

One thing liberals learned during covid is that during emergencies, people will do what they are told to do for the sake of society.

One thing normal people learned during covid is that politicians will lie about it being an emergency and that they will close down the country, force people to wear masks that don't do anything and push their agenda in the sake of "emergency"... and the people that did what they were told for the sake of society won't be so understanding next time.

[Methais]

One thing liberals learned during covid is that during emergencies, people will do what they are told to do for the sake of society.

One thing normal people learned during covid is that politicians will lie about it being an emergency and that they will close down the country, force people to wear masks that don't do anything and push their agenda in the sake of "emergency"... and the people that did what they were told for the sake of society won't be so understanding next time.

And the Serans of the world will happily go along with it 100% of the time. Because they're extreme retards.

[Suppressed Poet]

New Mexico legislators call for impeaching Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over temporary gun ban
https://www.koat.com/amp/article/new-mexico-gun-ban-governor-impeachment-calls/45090123


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —
After Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's 30-day ban on carrying firearms in public, representatives are now calling to impeach her.

Rep. Stefani Lord and Rep. John Block announced their plan to impeach her, saying this ban is against New Mexicans' constitutional rights.

"I was completely shocked. I mean, this is no way to address a crime issue," Lord said. "She took an oath to uphold that constitution. She needs to understand that those rights are absolute. And that's why we are impeaching her, because she has committed a crime in what she is doing."

Block agrees that this is what needs to be done.

"We need to impeach her and that's something that I don't take lightly. But unfortunately, we need to do it because if we don't start here, it's going to seep through the entire nation," Block said. "We're going to have governors all across the country think that they can just throw the Constitution in a paper shredder and see it go."

However, both Democrats from the Senate and the House say something different.

New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martinez sent us this statement. "It’s absolutely critical that city, county, and state officials continue working together to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. While I have strong concerns about the effectiveness and enforceability of this approach, we need to be focused on moving forward solutions that actually reduce gun violence and make our communities safer."

President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart also sent a statement in regard to the ban and the impeachment.

"We have a passionate governor who is fighting hard to keep the people in our state safe from gun violence. There’s plenty of room to debate the best pathways for doing that, but any talk of impeachment is counterproductive," Stewart said.

According to our political expert Brian Sanderoff, it is possible to impeach the governor, but it would be difficult. Since there is not a legislative session until January, the first step for this impeachment is to have a special session called on by the governor herself, or three-fifths of the House and Senate would need to agree to call on an extraordinary session.

"It would take a majority of the state House members 36 out of 70 in order to impeach a governor. Then, there'd be a trial in the state Senate where it would take two-thirds of the members to convict the governor," Sanderoff said.

However, Sanderoff said the current political realities would make it hard to impeach the governor.

"The Democrats enjoy large majorities in both the state House and the state Senate. In order to get a majority of the House members to impeach and then two-thirds of the state senators to convict would be highly unlikely," Sanderoff said.

Lujan Grisham's press secretary, Caroline Sweeney, sent this statement in response to the impeachment.

"These legislators are more focused on impeachment than working to develop real solutions to save New Mexican lives."

While both Lord and Block said they acknowledged there is a gun violence problem, they said this is not the way to do it. They are in the process of preparing the impeachment documents.

[Seran]

That's nice, they understand there is a gun violence problem but aren't doing something about it. Meanwhile the Governor has reached the logical conclusion that not having a gun makes it harder to commit gun violence. Wonder of wonders.

[~Rocktar~]

That's nice, they understand there is a gun violence problem but aren't doing something about it. Meanwhile the Governor has reached the logical conclusion that not having a gun makes it harder to commit gun violence. Wonder of wonders.

And this is why you are the GOAT Retard champion.

Typically the Left is the ones that don't want to use effective solutions for violence, you know, policing, incarcerating the small minority of perpetrators that commit the vast majority of crimes, anti-gang activities and so on for the quick and proven methods of reducing violence.

[Suppressed Poet]

That's nice, they understand there is a gun violence problem but aren't doing something about it. Meanwhile the Governor has reached the logical conclusion that not having a gun makes it harder to commit gun violence. Wonder of wonders.

Your oath of being a complete retard is absolute.

[Parkbandit]

That's nice, they understand there is a gun violence problem but aren't doing something about it. Meanwhile the Governor has reached the logical conclusion that not having a gun makes it harder to commit gun violence. Wonder of wonders.

How many people who are committing gun violence have gone through the process of getting a gun legally, applying and getting approved for a concealed carry permit? Like give me a guess of that percentage... because that is the only group of people that she decided to go after in her effort to curb gun violence.

I'm guessing that percentage is about the same as your IQ... less than 1.

"BUT SHE'S TRYING!" -Seran the Retard

So her "answer" to gun violence is to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Makes so much sense.. only if you are even MORE retarded than David Hogg.

[Neveragain]

That's nice, they understand there is a gun violence problem but aren't doing something about it. Meanwhile the Governor has reached the logical conclusion that not having a gun makes it harder to commit gun violence. Wonder of wonders.

Illogical conclusion, inanimate objects are incapable of committing acts of any kind. That's why we have deemed them "inanimate"

[Methais]

That's nice, they understand there is a gun violence problem but aren't doing something about it. Meanwhile the Governor has reached the logical conclusion that not having a gun makes it harder to commit gun violence. Wonder of wonders.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Methais]

How many people who are committing gun violence have gone through the process of getting a gun legally, applying and getting approved for a concealed carry permit? Like give me a guess of that percentage... because that is the only group of people that she decided to go after in her effort to curb gun violence.

I'm guessing that percentage is about the same as your IQ... less than 1.

"BUT SHE'S TRYING!" -Seran the Retard

So her "answer" to gun violence is to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Makes so much sense.. only if you are even MORE retarded than David Hogg.

I heard that Soyran screamed at and then took down his David Hogg poster after he made that tweet, which was located on his ceiling directly above his grease stained air mattress.

[Seran]

How many people who are committing gun violence have gone through the process of getting a gun legally, applying and getting approved for a concealed carry permit? Like give me a guess of that percentage... because that is the only group of people that she decided to go after in her effort to curb gun violence.

I'm guessing that percentage is about the same as your IQ... less than 1.

"BUT SHE'S TRYING!" -Seran the Retard

So her "answer" to gun violence is to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Makes so much sense.. only if you are even MORE retarded than David Hogg.

Why should I venture information on demand? You're not contributing the conversation or putting forth your own arguments, so why should anyone else? Besides, limiting public carry is not 'taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens' anyways, it does however allow officers an opportunity to scrutinize those illegally carrying firearms instead of the usual right wing nut jobs with the Yosemite Sam fixations.

[Suppressed Poet]

Why should I venture information on demand? You're not contributing the conversation or putting forth your own arguments, so why should anyone else? Besides, limiting public carry is not 'taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens' anyways, it does however allow officers an opportunity to scrutinize those illegally carrying firearms instead of the usual right wing nut jobs with the Yosemite Sam fixations.

Officers are not enforcing this illegal mandate. People are protesting while open carrying a firearm, and there is not a single report of anyone so much as being stopped or questioned by law enforcement. Why? Several reasons, but a major one being that any public body (government organization) that the court finds they violated an individual’s civil rights can be found liable for up to 2 million dollars. Ironically, this same governor signed that bill into law. https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/21%20Regular/bills/house/HB0004.pdf

[Methais]

Besides, limiting public carry is not 'taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens' anyways

It literally is though, you're just a retard and a big government simp. Nobody believes you own a gun either, so you can fuck off with that too.

Also, shall not be infringed. Which you're too retarded to understand.

[Parkbandit]

Why should I venture information on demand? You're not contributing the conversation or putting forth your own arguments, so why should anyone else?

Oh you misunderstood me... I wasn't actually asking you to contribute or have an intelligent thought. I might as well ask for world peace.


Besides, limiting public carry is not 'taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens' anyways,

Re-read what you just posted.

So.. taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is not taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

It's like you want to make sense and almost always fall flat on your face.


it does however allow officers an opportunity to scrutinize those illegally carrying firearms instead of the usual right wing nut jobs with the Yosemite Sam fixations.

It literally is taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Parkbandit]

It literally is though, you're just a retard and a big government simp. Nobody believes you own a gun either, so you can fuck off with that too.

Also, shall not be infringed. Which you're too retarded to understand.

Seran literally posted that the term "well regulated" means the government regulates more. He probably believes you can't put fringe on your gun.. like this:

https://www.westernleatherholster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Als-Plains-Indian-Rifle-Scabbard-CU.jpg

[Methais]

It's like you want to make sense and almost always fall flat on your face.

What do you mean almost?

[Parkbandit]

What do you mean almost?

I believe I can count on 1 hand the number of times Seran made a good point in 20 years... but he did have those 5 posts.

[Seran]

More second amendment shenanigans. Could only imagine how much of a right wing chad you have to be to think that your pizza taking time to cook entitles you to summary execution. The real tyranny is those trying to prevent the ATF from protecting innocents from Republican causes.


Man Pleads To AK-47 Threat Over Pizza Pie

SEPTEMBER 12--A Tennessee man has pleaded guilty to pointing an AK-47 rifle at Little Caesars employees because his $6 pepperoni pizza was taking too long to cook, records show.

In a plea deal, Charles Doty, 64, agreed last month to cop to his dangerous gunplay at a restaurant in Knoxville. Doty, who was charged with multiple felony counts, is scheduled to be sentenced on September 29 after pleading guilty to four aggravated assault counts.

As a result of Doty’s “blind plea,” the “length and manner of service of the sentence” will be solely determined by a Criminal Court judge, according to a prosecution spokesperson.


Police say Doty became incensed after being told that his pizza would take ten minutes to prepare. Doty demanded a free order of Little Caesars “Crazy Bread” before briefly leaving the restaurant, which is about five miles from his residence.

When Doty (pictured above) returned to Little Caesars, he was carrying an AK-47, which he first pointed at a female worker--who was on her first day on the job--while demanding his order. When another employee sought to leave the restaurant, cops report, Doty asked “where in the hell he thought he was going.”


The staffer then went to a back room and dialed 911.


In a bid to get Doty to leave Little Caesars, a female customer who had received her order handed him her own pepperoni pie. Doty then fled the restaurant (seen below) before Knoxville Police Department officers arrived.


Doty was subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault.


In a TV interview following the November 2021 bust, the worker who had the AK-47 pointed at her said she was shocked at Doty’s overreaction to a minor wait for a pizza. Referring to a Little Caesars slogan, she noted, “We’re not always Hot-N-Ready.”

https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/pepperoni-pistolero-678302



http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/assets/charlesdotymug21.jpg

[Methais]

More second amendment shenanigans. Could only imagine how much of a right wing chad you have to be to think that your pizza taking time to cook entitles you to summary execution. The real tyranny is those trying to prevent the ATF from protecting innocents from Republican causes.



http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/assets/charlesdotymug21.jpg

Add "Chad" to the list of things Seran doesn't understand but pretends he does.

[Suppressed Poet]

Could only imagine how much of a right wing chad you have to be to think that your pizza taking time to cook entitles you to summary execution.

I’m the kind of right wing chad that calls out soy boy commies like you for being retarded and my pizza gets cooked in wood-fire & coal burning ovens. Come and take them.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

More second amendment shenanigans. Could only imagine how much of a right wing chad you have to be to think that your pizza taking time to cook entitles you to summary execution. The real tyranny is those trying to prevent the ATF from protecting innocents from Republican causes.

Specific to this incident, what was the Republican cause?

I won't wait for an answer, because you'll ignore it like you always do.

[Seran]

I’m the kind of right wing chad that calls out soy boy commies like you for being retarded and my pizza gets cooked in wood-fire & coal burning ovens. Come and take them.

Do you also bring your AK with you to Starbucks to demand your morning pumpkin spice latte? You know, just in case you need to lay down some justice if the proper amount of whipped foam wasn't used.

[Suppressed Poet]

Do you also bring your AK with you to Starbucks to demand your morning pumpkin spice latte? You know, just in case you need to lay down some justice if the proper amount of whipped foam wasn't used.

No. My AKs stay locked in my gun safe and only come out when:

(A) When I want to fondle them (which is often)
(B) When I’m taking them to the shooting range (which is sometimes)
(C) When communist alien zombies have invaded & seized control of our government (which hasn’t happened yet but feels like we’re getting a little bit closer everyday)

Also, I don’t got to Starbucks nor do I drink pumpkin spice latte.

[Seran]

No. My AKs stay locked in my gun safe and only come out when:

(A) When I want to fondle them (which is often)
(B) When I’m taking them to the shooting range (which is sometimes)
(C) When communist alien zombies have invaded & seized control of our government (which hasn’t happened yet but feels like we’re getting a little bit closer everyday)

Also, I don’t got to Starbucks nor do I drink pumpkin spice latte.

Ah, well I supposed you were like the rest of the gun toting middle-income right wingers and were totally hen-pecked and so delivered your missus her daily shot of white-woman heroin. My bad. A and B are pretty acceptable. I'm even with you on C, but I think our perspectives are a wee bit different. When Trump gets his second term in 2032 or 2036 and he immediately sells the bottom 48 states, minus Florida back to Russia and Alaska/Texas to Saudi Arabia in exchange for a gold plated toilet to store his classified material next to, the rest of us will have a thing or two to say about it.

[Parkbandit]

More second amendment shenanigans. Could only imagine how much of a right wing chad you have to be to think that your pizza taking time to cook entitles you to summary execution. The real tyranny is those trying to prevent the ATF from protecting innocents from Republican causes.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/assets/charlesdotymug21.jpg

Little Caesars isn't pizza.

Fucking gross.

[Suppressed Poet]

Ah, well I supposed you were like the rest of the gun toting middle-income right wingers and were totally hen-pecked and so delivered your missus her daily shot of white-woman heroin.

It’s true my missus loves her white-woman heroin, but she is perfectly capable of driving her gas powered minivan to our local Starbucks to feed her addiction. That’s how I manage to avoid any violent encounters.

I’m good with the generic Sam’s Club Member’s Mark generic breakfast blend. My favorite coffee, and I shit you not, comes from Waffle House.

[Seran]

It’s true my missus loves her white-woman heroin, but she is perfectly capable of driving her gas powered minivan to our local Starbucks to feed her addiction. That’s how I manage to avoid any violent encounters.

I’m good with the generic Sam’s Club Member’s Mark generic breakfast blend. My favorite coffee, and I shit you not, comes from Waffle House.

That's good coffee, the french roast one is good too. Whole bean though, pods don't hold out well. Costco Columbian Supremo is pretty good as well, or Blind Dog Coffee's Dark Roast if they carry that back east.

[Suppressed Poet]

This new federal gun violence prevention office should really begin it’s focus on the Bidens. Hunter is facing a felony gun charge & Joe left behind in Afghanistan $7billion worth of weapons of war to terrorists.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-gun-violence-prevention-d5c710e2051b220457ce95ac1c8ac1fa


White House to announce first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention, AP sources say

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is creating the first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention, according to two people familiar with the plans.

The office will coordinate efforts across the federal government and will offer help and guidance to states struggling with increasing gun violence, while taking the lead on implementation of the bipartisan gun legislation signed into law last year. Biden tentatively plans to announce the new effort with an event Friday at the White House, said the people, who had direct knowledge of the plans and who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The office fulfills a key demand of gun safety activists who banded together as a coalition to endorse Biden for president in 2024, and is an effort by the White House to keep the issue front-and-center as the president pushes for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and urges Congress to act.

“The creation of an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the White House will mark a turning point in how our federal government responds to an epidemic that plagues every state and every community in America,” said Kris Brown, president of the gun safety group Brady, which has advocated for the office since 2020.

“Tackling this epidemic will take a whole-of-government approach, and this new office would ensure the executive branch is focused and coordinated on proven solutions that will save lives.”

Greg Jackson, the executive director of the Community Justice Action Fund, and Everytown for Gun Safety’s Rob Wilcox are expected to hold roles in the newly created office, which White House staff secretary Stef Feldman will oversee, the people said. The White House’s plans were first reported by The Washington Post.

“There are few people who care more about the work of gun violence prevention than President Biden,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has drafted legislation with Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., that would create such an office. “Establishing a White House office dedicated to this fight will save thousands of lives and strengthen the federal government’s implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.”

Firearms are the No. 1 killer of children in the U.S., and so far this year 220 children younger than 11 have died by guns and 1,049 between the ages of 12 and 17 have died. As of 2020, the firearm mortality rate in the U.S. for those under age 19 is 5.6 per 100,000. The next comparable is Canada, with 0.08 deaths per 100,000.

But Republican support for gun restrictions is slipping a year after Congress passed the most comprehensive firearms control legislation in decades with bipartisan support, according to a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Most Democrats, 92%, want gun laws made stronger, in line with their views in a UChicago Harris/AP-NORC poll conducted in July 2022. But Republican desire for more expansive legislation has dropped to 32% from 49% last summer and independents’ support has also declined slightly to 61% from 72%.

Yet despite the political divide, both sides believe it’s important to reduce mass shootings that plague the nation, the poll found. As of Monday, there have been at least 35 mass killings in the U.S. so far in 2023, leaving at least 171 people dead, not including shooters who died, according to a database maintained by the AP and USA Today in partnership with Northeastern University.

That puts the country on a faster pace for mass killings than in any other year since 2006, according to the database, which defines a mass killing as one in which four or more people are killed, not including the perpetrator, within a 24-hour period.