New York Times Pressures Credit Card Giants to Blacklist Gun Purchasers

[graciew]

Is it?
Out of curiosity sincerely, aren’t you as a seller requested to provide the background check you did if there is an issue with the buyer later on? Does it work the same in all states?

 

[LastStand]

Is it?

Witness testimony has always been an acceptable form of evidence. Character witnesses are also acceptable as well.

Out of curiosity sincerely, aren’t you as a seller requested to provide the background check you did if there is an issue with the buyer later on? Does it work the same in all states?

No. I had the state’s word for it that my coworker was fit to possess and utilize a firearm. The state would never make a mistake, right?

 

[graciew]

I have always appreciated that in US the word is important. I lived in the south. Texas.
And when I had to return an item I had bought and my word would be enough for the money to be returned,it was like wow. How important trust is.
So the note was on some kind of admiration.
As far as making mistakes, we all do

 

[Inisfallen]

Witness testimony has always been an acceptable form of evidence. Character witnesses are also acceptable as well.

Yes, in (as you say above) a court of law.

We’re not talking about a court of law here. Different set of circumstances entirely.

What you’re saying is like asking an electrician if he’s licensed before he wires up your home, and him responding “hey, my buddy Bob says I’m OK.”

 

[John24]

No. I had the state’s word for it that my coworker was fit to possess and utilize a firearm. The state would never make a mistake, right?

Good example of why we need to require gun registration, strict storage requirements, and criminal and civil liability for registered owners if their guns are used in a crime. At least until the 2nd is repealed.

 

[Inisfallen]

Good example of why we need to require gun registration, strict storage requirements, and criminal and civil liability for registered owners if their guns are used in a crime.

All of which seem like very good ideas.

And probably within the scope of the Second Amendment, if you read the Heller decision. Repeal wouldn’t be necessary.

Of course, the political will to do it would be necessary, and we’re not there yet. But the country is changing. We’ll get there.

 

[John24]

Of course, the political will to do it would be necessary, and we’re not there yet. But the country is changing. We’ll get there.

Especially as the proportion of millennial and younger voters increases. Kids who spent their school years practicing active shooter drills post-Columbine and the 200,000 students who have experienced a real school shooting are not interested in perpetuating our sick gun culture. Expect ballot initiatives like Washington’s I-1639 in more states.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t wish gun owners didn’t exist. I wish their guns were taken away however.

Do you wish the guns were taken away from the government?

 

[JonNC]

LastStand:

No. I had the state’s word for it that my coworker was fit to possess and utilize a firearm. The state would never make a mistake, right?

Good example of why we need to require gun registration, strict storage requirements, and criminal and civil liability for registered owners if their guns are used in a crime. At least until the 2nd is repealed.

Gun registration serves your desire to confiscate the rights of law abiding gun owners. That’s the only purpose.
Strict storage requirements serve only to purpose of rendering people defenseless.
Criminal and civil liability against a gun owner whose firearm is stolen is like those kinds of penalties if someone’s stolen car is used in a crime.
These are, as you infer, thinly veiled tactics intended to undermine the rights of law abiding citizens.
By your unwillingness to answer my question about government having firearms seems to imply that you believe only government should have firearms, even though That is an arrangement similar to those countries in the twentieth century that confiscated civilian firearms, then killed tens of millions of civilians.
Is my inference correct?

 

[LastStand]

I don’t wish gun owners didn’t exist. I wish their guns were taken away however.

If they had no guns, they would no longer be gun owners, meaning you wish that gun owners did not exist.

If “Civil War 2” refers to the nonviolent protest movement you’re planning then I wish you the best.

I suspect gun owners will stay quiet until confiscation starts. Then it will be time to fire a second shot to be heard around the world. As long as you stay non-violent (using government force counts), we will too.

We already offer tens of thousands of lives a year to the gun cult. We don’t seem to be getting much in return for our sacrifice except some happy gun company executives.

Guns save lives.

Why do you support this violation of their “human rights”? Pretty bizarre.

As a general rule of thumb, people who infringe on other persons or their property typically lose rights. No inconsistency here.

Good example of why we need to require gun registration, strict storage requirements, and criminal and civil liability for registered owners if their guns are used in a crime. At least until the 2nd is repealed.

Non-sequitur.

 

[LastStand]

es, in (as you say above) a court of law.

We’re not talking about a court of law here. Different set of circumstances entirely.

What you’re saying is like asking an electrician if he’s licensed before he wires up your home, and him responding “hey, my buddy Bob says I’m OK.”

Agreed, in a court life, liberty, and property are dependent on the trustworthiness of witnesses. A mere transfer of property is far less serious. So if my assessment of a person is good in court, it should be good for less serious matters.

 

[Inisfallen]

Agreed, in a court life, liberty, and property are dependent on the trustworthiness of witnesses. A mere transfer of property is far less serious. So if my assessment of a person is good in court, it should be good for less serious matters.

And my life (not to mention my liberty and my property) may depend on you not selling a gun to someone who seems OK to you.

So, forgive me, but your assessment isn’t good enough for me.

 

[LastStand]

Lots of “maybes” there, I deal in certainties, and we know for a certainty that a citizen’s assessment of his neighbor’s character is sufficient to aid the government in making serious decisions.

 

[JonNC]

I mean if you really want to start a war and shoot cops and soldiers go ahead, but I doubt it will help your cause (and threatening such greatly helps mine, so please continue).

As I said before, law abiding gun owners would use violence only as a last resort.
Your cause isn’t helped by your strident unwillingness to answer a simple question.

 

[Cathoholic]

John24.

You said . . . .

I wish their (gun owners) guns were taken away however.

(Parenthetical addition mine for context)

JonNC asked you several times in various ways . . .

Do you wish the guns were taken away from the government?

.

I think it would be a reasonable time here to answer him.

 

[JonNC]

[> quote=“LastStand, post:139, topic:526698, full:true”]

I don’t wish gun owners didn’t exist. I wish their guns were taken away however.

If they had no guns, they would no longer be gun owners, meaning you wish that gun owners did not exist.

I don’t believe this is true. I think @John24 believes the government should have the guns, so gun owners would still exist, and they would be in control of your liberty.

 

[LastStand]

Oh yeah, apparently we are smart enough to choose our masters with the guns but not smart enough to own guns ourselves. Does not compute.

 

[JonNC]

Oh yeah, apparently we are smart enough to choose our masters with the guns but not smart enough to own guns ourselves. Does not compute.

Why are you under the impression that those who think you are not smart enough to own a firearm think you are smart enough to choose your masters?

 

[LastStand]

They appeal to democracy and seem confident that they can get enough votes. In which case, we will have to make some very unpopular decisions.

Studies concerning the effects of peer pressure do not bode well for us. Most people will take the easy way out or actively cooperate with evil. I know this from personal experience.

 

[John24]

Gun registration serves your desire to confiscate the rights of law abiding gun owners.

With rights come responsibilities.

If they had no guns, they would no longer be gun owners, meaning you wish that gun owners did not exist.

No, I wish they didn’t have guns.

I suspect gun owners will stay quiet until confiscation starts. Then it will be time to fire a second shot to be heard around the world. As long as you stay non-violent (using government force counts), we will too.

At least the anti-terrorism laws will get some legitimate use.

As a general rule of thumb, people who infringe on other persons or their property typically lose rights. No inconsistency here.

If I’m understanding correctly you and others in the thread think gun ownership (or self defense, whatever) is an inherent, God-given right. How can man take that right away, and why are similar constitutional rights (free speech, religion, etc.) not taken away from felons, aliens, dishonorable discharges, or the mentally ill?