What Happens After Calls for New Gun Restrictions? Sales Go Up

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
Perhaps I do not like them, and I want to get them in trouble.

So what you are saying is that if the police find no wrongdoing, then you can purchase firearms, is that correct?

So if the person I made the accusation was unable to prove what they were doing the night of the cross burning, then they are to be banned from buying firearms for 2-3 years, is that correct? Even if my accusation was false.

No, clear as mud, you stated

You have given no reasons why a flintlock should have greater punishments than a 9mm, your only claim is not to worry.

That is not a reason for the statement.

Ergo, your position is, by definition, unreasonable.

So do you have a reason for making an illegal position of a flintlock a more grievous offense than a handgun.

(and, as an additional FYI, AK-47s are already illegal in the US, just as they were illegal at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris. They only thing that you can purchase in the US are semi-automatics that have a physical resemblance to the Kalashnikov, but are mechanically different. Kind of like buying a tank that is really a Ford pickup with different body panels.

If you gave decent laws, I have yet to see them, all I have seen is irrational nonsense.
Click to expand...
But if you get them in trouble just to get back at them, and the evidence proves that you did it to just do it, then the tables are turned.

Yes, if the police find no wrongdoing, then your clear to buy guns.

I do believe that either through police investigations or you bringing your eyewitnesses, and alibis you could either prove or disprove whether you were at that cross burning event. If you can not bring the evidence that you weren’t there and the police has suspicion due to the people whom they talked to, something is up.
Yes a 2-3 ban would apply, even if your accusation is false, the file would be kept open and the person accused would be smart to clear their name up.
If they prove it wasn’t them and the accusations were a hoax, then the person who made the hoax would have the tables turned.

With the flint as you keep arguing. I have said that a handgun is the only thing a person can have at home. Plus one hunting gun, but it would have to be locked up in a basement or attic. A flintlock is big, that would not pass as a handgun.
These would be those handguns.
cabelas.com/category/Handguns/105526980.uts

I do have descent laws proposed. You on the contrary have not put up any laws that would help.
All you have done has been complain. Even support individuals who have bad track records.
 
chero23 said:
That is true, but a hate group has been established as groups as the KKK as the neo-nazis, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
What, other than holding unpopular political viewpoints, are members of those groups guilty of that would justify stripping them of their rights, absent criminal conviction?
 
chero23 said:
So what do you propose? You haven’t brought up anything but just complain.
Click to expand...
I propose we do not strip any rights away from anyone until a court has been able to adjudicate the issue. If and only if the person is found guilty should they loose anything.
chero23 said:
This is about guns, voting that’s a whole different topic.
Click to expand...
Not really, we are talking about you wanting to see due process restricted for suspicions. you obviously don’t care about gun rights so I thought if you looked at it from a point of view you care about it would open your eyes. I guess not.
 
chero23 said:
That is true, but a hate group has been established as groups as the KKK as the neo-nazis, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
simply naming two groups that most people would agree are hate groups does nothing to answer the question of ‘Who determines what constitutes a “hate group”?’
 
oliver927 said:
I propose we do not strip any rights away from anyone until a court has been able to adjudicate the issue. If and only if the person is found guilty should they loose anything.

Not really, we are talking about you wanting to see due process restricted for suspicions. you obviously don’t care about gun rights so I thought if you looked at it from a point of view you care about it would open your eyes. I guess not.
Click to expand...
So for the people that have cried out, “Why didnt the FBI do anything with Omar Marteen, he had been investigated twice”.

He worked for a major securtiy company, which gave him a gun, which btw he had the night of the killings.

So for that, you believe those peopel should not complain bc a conviction was not handed?

How about those women that were too afraid to bring charges against their husbands, and then were murdered by them? What do you do then?
 
oliver927 said:
simply naming two groups that most people would agree are hate groups does nothing to answer the question of ‘Who determines what constitutes a “hate group”?’
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is considered a hate group bc of us being against abortion and gay marriages. But I do believe there is a staunch difference between the KKK and the Catholic Church in terms of hate groups.

Consider a hate group someone who has gone out and done murders. Gangs, cartels, terrorist groups (home grown and abroad)
 
chero23 said:
The Catholic Church is considered a hate group bc of us being against abortion and gay marriages. But I do believe there is a staunch difference between the KKK and the Catholic Church in terms of hate groups.

Consider a hate group someone who has gone out and done murders. Gangs, cartels, terrorist groups (home grown and abroad)
Click to expand...
Criminal gangs and drug cartels don’t buy their firearms at the local Walmart. They’re not going to go through a background check.
 
chero23 said:
But if you get them in trouble just to get back at them, and the evidence proves that you did it to just do it, then the tables are turned.

Yes, if the police find no wrongdoing, then your clear to buy guns.
Click to expand...
That is what happened with Omar Matteen
With the flint as you keep arguing. I have said that a handgun is the only thing a person can have at home. Plus one hunting gun, but it would have to be locked up in a basement or attic. A flintlock is big, that would not pass as a handgun.
These would be those handguns.
Click to expand...
That STILL does not answer the question. Why would an illegal flintlock justify more prision time than an illegal handgun.
I do have descent laws proposed.
Click to expand...
No, those are not decent. You restrict people from participating in common sports simply on the basis of where they live.

You think that illegally possessing a flintlock musket should bring more prison time than illegally possessing a semi-automatic handgun.

You think that people can hunt rabbit, coyote and deer with the same rifle (since you are restricting them to a single hunting rifle)

None of that is ‘decent’, they are absurd.
You on the contrary have not put up any laws that would help.
Click to expand...
Help what? Reduce gun crime? That one is easy. Encourage more people to get their concealed pistol license, and encourage businesses to eliminate these gun free zones.
 
chero23 said:
So for the people that have cried out, “Why didnt the FBI do anything with Omar Marteen, he had been investigated twice”.

He worked for a major securtiy company, which gave him a gun, which btw he had the night of the killings.

So for that, you believe those peopel should not complain bc a conviction was not handed?
Click to expand...
No, they have all the right in the world to complain. But they should be complaining about the dropped investigations and not that a citizen who had no convictions was able to buy a gun. They should be complaining that the PC culture in this country let someone off the watch list. Maybe the government should stop with the PC junk that got the investigation canceled. Terrorism investigations should not be stopped because someone said the word “racism”. Follow the facts where ever they lead.
The FBI reportedly cancelled its 2013 investigation into Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen after only 10 months because they viewed the terroristic threats he made as a reaction to “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith,” by his coworkers.
Click to expand...
“Director Comey confirmed to reporters this morning that there was a full FBI investigation of Omar Mateen in 2013,” she explained. “It was 10 months in length, and it was opened after he told his coworkers that he had family connections to Al Qaeda, that he was a member of a Shi’a terrorism organization and that he hoped law enforcement would raid his home and assault his wife so that he could then retaliate and martyr himself.”
Click to expand...
source
chero23 said:
How about those women that were too afraid to bring charges against their husbands, and then were murdered by them? What do you do then?
Click to expand...
First, this has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Second, those abusive husbands dont need a gun to kill. Third, you dont even say they were killed with a gun, you are just trying to link these horrible tragedies to guns to make it it seems like the unconstitutionally vague laws you are proposing are necessary and would make a difference. Nothing you have suggested would stop an abusive husband from killing their wife.
 
chero23 said:
That is true, but a hate group has been established as groups as the KKK as the neo-nazis, just to name a few.
Click to expand...
How so? I expect the labeling to be highly subjective.

If we go with ties to recent violence then suddenly Bernie supporters are all on the ban list.

Unions have a checkered past as well, and might be deemed a ‘hate group’

Or do you advocate we only include conservative groups, pro-life protesters and such?
 
ucfengr said:
Criminal gangs and drug cartels don’t buy their firearms at the local Walmart. They’re not going to go through a background check.
Click to expand...
Which brings me to another point which i forgot to mention. Police, the authorities know were the violence, crimes is at. Once a month, they will have road blocks looking for guns and drugs. If a gun is found and no permit is on hand and the person is a notorious criminal, automatically 25 years in prison.
Next question
 
Brendan said:
That is what happened with Omar Matteen

That STILL does not answer the question. Why would an illegal flintlock justify more prision time than an illegal handgun.

No, those are not decent. You restrict people from participating in common sports simply on the basis of where they live.

You think that illegally possessing a flintlock musket should bring more prison time than illegally possessing a semi-automatic handgun.

You think that people can hunt rabbit, coyote and deer with the same rifle (since you are restricting them to a single hunting rifle)

None of that is ‘decent’, they are absurd.

Help what? Reduce gun crime? That one is easy. Encourage more people to get their concealed pistol license, and encourage businesses to eliminate these gun free zones.
Click to expand...
That is what happened with Omar Matteen

There’s a thread going on about the Orlando shootings. I recommend you go on there and tell the people who have complaint b/c the FBI didnt do much more with this individual after he had been investigated twice for terrorism link and had had a violent first marriage.

That STILL does not answer the question. Why would an illegal flintlock justify more prision time than an illegal handgun.

I hear people who are in favor of guns, “permits will be gotten by law abiding citizens”. If your a law abiding citizen then get a permit, no need to ask questions about a flint. A handgun is all one ccan have. Heck, I would even allow open handguns policies throughout. But no flints, simple as that. No more questions about flints I have answered and be concrete.
 
oliver927 said:
No, they have all the right in the world to complain. But they should be complaining about the dropped investigations and not that a citizen who had no convictions was able to buy a gun. They should be complaining that the PC culture in this country let someone off the watch list. Maybe the government should stop with the PC junk that got the investigation canceled. Terrorism investigations should not be stopped because someone said the word “racism”. Follow the facts where ever they lead.

source

First, this has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Second, those abusive husbands dont need a gun to kill. Third, you dont even say they were killed with a gun, you are just trying to link these horrible tragedies to guns to make it it seems like the unconstitutionally vague laws you are proposing are necessary and would make a difference. Nothing you have suggested would stop an abusive husband from killing their wife.
Click to expand...
**No, they have all the right in the world to complain. But they should be complaining about the dropped investigations and not that a citizen who had no convictions was able to buy a gun. They should be complaining that the PC culture in this country let someone off the watch list. Maybe the government should stop with the PC junk that got the investigation canceled. Terrorism investigations should not be stopped because someone said the word “racism”. Follow the facts where ever they lead.
**

People on the right have been the ones complaining that Obama and the FBI should have done more with this guy (Omar). Have you said that to the right wing people? I dont think so.

****First, this has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Second, those abusive husbands dont need a gun to kill. Third, you dont even say they were killed with a gun, you are just trying to link these horrible tragedies to guns to make it it seems like the unconstitutionally vague laws you are proposing are necessary and would make a difference. Nothing you have suggested would stop an abusive husband from killing their wife.
I would bring in abusive husbands into the conversation b/c, true they can kill the spouse with something else besides a gun but a gun can still be used. Like I said, if the person is in a terrorist list, being investigated for terrorism ties, cartel, hate groups, and domestic violence, they can not buy a gun. Let me repeat myself, they can not buy a gun.
 
That STILL does not answer the question. Why would an illegal flintlock justify more prision time than an illegal handgun.

I hear people who are in favor of guns, “permits will be gotten by law abiding citizens”. If your a law abiding citizen then get a permit, no need to ask questions about a flint. A handgun is all one ccan have. Heck, I would even allow open handguns policies throughout. But no flints, simple as that. No more questions about flints I have answered and be concrete.

No it is not a concrete answer. If someone has an illegal flintlock musket and another person has an illegal semi-automatic handgun, you have proposed that the person in possession of the illegal flintlock should receive more prison time, simply on the grounds that the flintlock is bigger.

Yet you have offered no reasons as to why.
 
Brendan said:
That STILL does not answer the question. Why would an illegal flintlock justify more prision time than an illegal handgun.

I hear people who are in favor of guns, “permits will be gotten by law abiding citizens”. If your a law abiding citizen then get a permit, no need to ask questions about a flint. A handgun is all one ccan have. Heck, I would even allow open handguns policies throughout. But no flints, simple as that. No more questions about flints I have answered and be concrete.
Click to expand...
No it is not a concrete answer. If someone has an illegal flintlock musket and another person has an illegal semi-automatic handgun, you have proposed that the person in possession of the illegal flintlock should receive more prison time, simply on the grounds that the flintlock is bigger.

Yet you have offered no reasons as to why.

B/c it is bigger. Can a regular handgun cause more harm than a flint to which you are talking about? Probably so. But, that is what I have proposed and wouldnt change.

I keep asking you this, pro gun people say, gun permits are gotten by law abiding citizens. If you have a flint w/o a permit and your neighbor has a regular handgun also w/o a permit, then you guys are not law abiding. Why the fuzz???
 
chero23 said:
No it is not a concrete answer. If someone has an illegal flintlock musket and another person has an illegal semi-automatic handgun, you have proposed that the person in possession of the illegal flintlock should receive more prison time, simply on the grounds that the flintlock is bigger.

Yet you have offered no reasons as to why.
Click to expand...
B/c it is bigger. Can a regular handgun cause more harm than a flint to which you are talking about? Probably so. But, that is what I have proposed and wouldnt change.

And THAT is why your proposed legislation is not ‘decent’ but absurd.
I keep asking you this, pro gun people say, gun permits are gotten by law abiding citizens. If you have a flint w/o a permit and your neighbor has a regular handgun also w/o a permit, then you guys are not law abiding. Why the fuzz???
Click to expand...
Yes, criminals will have guns, even if they are illegal, we agree on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top