New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers

[JonNC]

JonNC:

I think law abiding gun owners would resort to violence only as a last resort, when no other option to defend their rights.

Everyone except me seems to have a really low opinion of gun owners.

And yet, people who legally own firearms are among the most law abiding citizens in the country.

 

[John24]

I’m glad that when guns are banned they will abide by the law.

 

[Cruciferi]

They’re never going to ban ALL guns. Your assertion that this will happen is nothing short of absurd and preposterous. Furthermore, enforcement of such a ban would literally be impossible. Not to mention that a Civil War would erupt.

No, the Government will likely engineer an ammunition shortage. They could nationalize the ammunition companies outright but they’ll likely wait until we go to war with Russia and/or China to implement rationing.

 

[Cathoholic]

John24 . . .

I’m glad that when guns are banned they will abide by the law.

Well your feelings of gladness aside, guns CANNOT be “banned” in this country. At least by Congressional “laws”.

There is and can be no such “law”.

They only way the Government can ban arms in our country (the USA) at least LICITLY, is by changing the Constitution.

That is much more than a mere “law” change and isn’t going to happen.

Your talk about disobeying “laws” is in your mind directed against the citizens.
But in reality would involve an oligarchy attempting to USURP “law”.

That is WHY it is inappropriate for you to cheer on such scenarios. Because as one would do that, they are in effect cheering on lawLESSNESS.

Not “obeying the law”.

 

[JonNC]

I’m glad that when guns are banned they will abide by the law.

Will your “ban” include the government?

 

[JonNC]

They only way the Government can ban arms in our country (the USA) at least LICITLY, is by changing the Constitution.

That is much more than a mere “law” change and isn’t going to happen.
.

Part of the anger regarding the 2016 election was the loss of control of the appointments to the Supreme Court.
In the area of gun rights, the hope was to appoint justices who would have been willing to change the meaning of the 2nd, redefining “militia”, turning it into a government power instead of an individual right, the precedent of Heller notwithstanding.

 

[JonNC]

They’re never going to ban ALL guns. Your assertion that this will happen is nothing short of absurd and preposterous. Furthermore, enforcement of such a ban would literally be impossible. Not to mention that a Civil War would erupt.

No, the Government will likely engineer an ammunition shortage. They could nationalize the ammunition companies outright but they’ll likely wait until we go to war with Russia and/or China to implement rationing.

The prospects of this became more difficult with the Trump SCOTUS appointees.

 

[Inisfallen]

Well your feelings of gladness aside, guns CANNOT be “banned” in this country. At least by Congressional “laws”.

Cathoholic, none of us (or at least very few of us) are talking about “banning” guns. It’s just not on the table.

 

[Inisfallen]

The CSGV would want me to pay for a background check on my son before giving him my grandfather’s shotgun. This is too extreme, and is not “common sense”.

Well, yes. It’s far from extreme to suggest that gifts of firearms be subject to the same regulations as sales of firearms.

 

[JonNC]

Cathoholic:

Well your feelings of gladness aside, guns CANNOT be “banned” in this country. At least by Congressional “laws”.

Cathoholic, none of us (or at least very few of us) are talking about “banning” guns. It’s just not on the table.

@John24 is one, except he refuses to respond to a simple question about a ban.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Well, yes . It’s far from extreme to suggest that gifts of firearms be subject to the same regulations as sales of firearms.

Good grief, a voice of reason in the murky, dingy, wellspring of rugged individualism

Perhaps the real reason common sense gun laws bother most persons is because they wouldn’t pass the litmus test to have one…hmmmm: one can wonder

 

[Cathoholic]

Inisfallen . . .

Cathoholic, none of us (or at least very few of us) are talking about “banning” guns.

John24 . . .

I’m glad that when guns are banned . . .

 

[John24]

No, the Government will likely engineer an ammunition shortage.

This is another good idea.

They only way the Government can ban arms in our country (the USA) at least LICITLY, is by changing the Constitution.

Yes, this what I support and have said so in this thread. Congress can regulate the types of guns people can own though, so until the 2nd amendment is repealed it would be a good idea to ban all guns with a capacity greater than one.

The prospects of this became more difficult with the Trump SCOTUS appointees.

I’m not really worried about this. The conservative justices have shown they aren’t interested in upholding the Judicial Oath (they somehow managed to release the opinions in Masterpiece and Trump v. Hawaii on the same day with straight faces) and will require a nudge in the right direction. It’s happened before and will have to happen again if the Court stays on its current path.

 

[Cathoholic]

John24 . . . .

Congress can regulate the types of guns people can own though, so until the 2nd amendment is repealed it would be a good idea to ban all guns with a capacity greater than one.

You are wrong. It is not a “good idea” at all.

It is a terrible idea.

.

Of course what John24 REALLY means is NOT to “ban” all guns with a capacity greater than one.

No.

What John24 REALLY means is to ban all guns with a capacity greater than one ONLY AGAINST law-abiding citizens."

He would not have his ideas “conditioned” to think that way.

John24 will want ex-President Obama’s security detail armed to the teeth for his safety (and so do I. The Obamas deserve high level protection after serving).

John24 will maintain a heavily armed presence of guards for public engagements by Speaker Pelosi (just like I do).

John24 will not want international elites coming here to address the U.N. being in an un-armed situation. (Me neither.)

But most of all, John24, will want heavily armed police to be able to protect HIMSELF (which again is very reasonable).

John24’s statist ideas want HIM to make decisions regarding YOU and other good, hard-working, law-abiding citizens to incrementally curtail their rights.

John24, wants to disarm law-abiding citizens, and it is evident from the ideas he presented here.

All arguments presented here against good citizens having their fire arms rights have merely been FEELINGS based.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The prospects of this became more difficult with the Trump SCOTUS appointees.

I’m not really worried about this. The conservative justices have shown they aren’t interested in upholding the Judicial Oath (they somehow managed to release the opinions in Masterpiece and Trump v. Hawaii on the same day with straight faces) and will require a nudge in the right direction. It’s happened before and will have to happen again if the Court stays on its current path.

So, when are you going to answer my question, the one I’ve posed at least four times?

 

[Inisfallen]

John, of course, is entitled to his opinion. And, given the carnage and loss of life happening every day in this country, I get where he’s coming from. But I suspect those who would ban guns entirely are a tiny minority.

I think I’m probably more representative of those who would like to see more regulation of firearms. I have no issue whatsoever with hunting, or the possession of hunting weapons (although I’d like to see a clear definition of such weapons written in to the law), and I believe those who can demonstrate a compelling need to carry a firearm (concealed or otherwise) should be able to obtain a permit to do so. I think a background check for any transfer of ownership of a firearm is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

That’s why I contribute regularly (I’ve got them on autopay on a credit card) to Everytown For Gun Safety, which does not advocate for a ban of all guns, but merely for sensible gun regulation.

 

[Vanny]

Exactly. Thank you

 

[Guinness]

Well, yes . It’s far from extreme to suggest that gifts of firearms be subject to the same regulations as sales of firearms.

Why should I have to seek permission from the government to give a gift to my wife or daughter?

 

[Inisfallen]

Nobody said you should have to “seek permission” from the government. Assuming your wife or daughter can pass the same background check she would have to pass to purchase a firearm, you would be entirely free to give her a gun as a gift.

Why should the transfer of ownership of a firearm without a corresponding payment be exempt from a background check, while a transfer of ownership in exchange for money be subject to a check?

There’s no sensible reason for that.

 

[Guinness]

Nobody said you should have to “seek permission” from the government. Assuming your wife or daughter can pass the same background check she would have to pass to purchase a firearm, you would be entirely free to give her a gun as a gift.

The whole purpose of the background check is to get permission from the government.

Why should the transfer of ownership of a firearm without a corresponding payment be exempt from a background check, while a transfer of ownership in exchange for money be subject to a check?

There’s no sensible reason for that.

The sensible reason is that it is requiring a background check for private firearms transfers would be unenforceable due to the lack of a national firearm registry and the impossibility of creating one.