Problem: Illegal gun sales are taking place in your state. What do you do?

[baldguy]

Try and put a stop to the crime? Wrong. You try and put a stop to people investigating the crime:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/02/15/2010-02-15_stay_away_ya_varmints_dont_try_stings_here_gunlovin_w_va_pol_warns_mike.html

[msongs]

1. 2nd amendment does NOT prohibit guns on airplanes or in the hands of criminals nt

[rrneck]

2. Why should it? nt

[baldguy]

5. It doesn't mandate it either.

Other federal, state & local laws however - all of which are lawful & Constitutional - *DO* prohibit taking guns on airplanes AND sales of guns to felons.

Why do supposed "gun enthusiasts" support sales of guns to criminals?

[farmout rightarm]

9. "other laws...are lawful..."? Well thats sum reel rokket syunce their.

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

16. Um, you're mistaken about something.

There's no laws prohibiting taking a gun on an airplane. It's done every day.

[farmout rightarm]

19. I take my gun with me on the plane every time I fly. I'm not a policeman,

an air marshal, a sheriff or any other kind of law enforcement person. Can you deduce how I do it - legally?
:D

[sailor65]

25. You declare and check it......

same as I do.

[farmout rightarm]

36. No...I should have specified...next to my seat.

:-)

[TheWraith]

59. Also true. But you're perfectly able to take a gun on a commercial airliner.

In fact, anyone who qualifies as a "federal agent" (meaning not just air marshals, but US marshals, FBI, Treasury officers, Postal Inspectors, etcetera, are not just entitled to carry a loaded weapon on a plane but actually required to do so.

[farmout rightarm]

68. Um, see post 19. I'm none of those guys.

:-)

[TheWraith]

72. I know. Just making an additional point. nt

[farmout rightarm]

75. Okay pardon me I misunderstood. It's all good.

:D

[valhalla]

28. Own your own plane. NT

[sailor65]

29. Don't be silly

If he owned his own plane, he'd have a star next to his name.....

:-)

[farmout rightarm]

35. I mailed in my donation.

Hi, sailor, wanna fool around?

:rofl:

[sailor65]

37. Hell, if you have your own plane,

lead the way, I'm yours!

[farmout rightarm]

47. I even go places in it now and then!

I guess a lot of folks think owning a plane is strange but the one I have is the same one I was paid to fly
for many years. The company that owned it was bought out by another bigger one (hardly a unique event) which already had several. They wanted me to move to New York but I didn't want to so I basically 'retired' and they gave me the airplane in lieu of severance. It's worth about as much as a very nice car...maybe $120K if I wanted to sell it...which I don't.

[sailor65]

55. Very nice

I've been hoping for some years now to buy one myself. I've had my eye on a Bonanza for a while, but I just haven't been able to make it happen.

[farmout rightarm]

58. I always liked Bonanas...even the old V-tailed devils haha

Gotta admit they're almost as fast as my Cessna and burn half as much gas. When I first got it I could 'fill it up' for about 300 bucks...now it costs almost 700. Argggh. :scared:

[sailor65]

64. It's the v-tail I want

Just had a love for them, for a very long time.

[farmout rightarm]

66. I bet you can find one that's affordable. You probably know this but in case no, a tip

the earlier shorter-coupled models (I can't remember the years but I seem to recall, about when they added the 5th and sometimes 6th seats) had a tendency to 'wander' in S&L flight...an artifact of the v-tail. A cheap yaw damper (free, actually) is to place your foot exactly between the rudder pedals so you can sort of hold a little bit of pressure on them both at the same time. It helps if you have big feet. :D

[dashrif]

92. Come

to Ada get some GAMIjectors and learn to fly lean of peak got to save that money

[farmout rightarm]

96. I definitely am considering that...but not sure I can justify their cost.

Why does all this shit cost so much? (I'm kidding, I know the answer even if I don't like it)

I used to buy air filters for my plane that were made by Fram for a Buick, for 7 bucks...even had the exact same part number except the 60 dollar ones had PMA on them.

[dashrif]

103. I

can tell you you will save anywhere from 2-4 gal a hour also they just filed a pat and a faa cert for unleaded avgas

[farmout rightarm]

33. Bingo! A Cessna 310P

:D

[one-eyed fat man]

147. Real airplanes

have round engines and tailwheels. (I'm an A&P/IA too)

[farmout rightarm]

150. I had a PT-22 for a few years...sadly against my own better judgment

I let a guy without enough taildragger experience fly it and he groundlooped on landing, hit 3 other planes and killed the guy in the front seat.

[one-eyed fat man]

163. I may be cynical

but if you want an airplane won't get stolen, a Piper Pacer, with AN gyros.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. It's your plane.

[farmout rightarm]

97. Right.

:-)

[rrneck]

88. Posts like that

do a fine job of selling guns.

[cowman]

104. You show

me one person on this forum that has advocated the selling of firearms to criminals, you can't because it hasn't happened

[SteveM]

149. Who supports "sales of guns to criminals?" Or is this just another...

knowing miss-truth, better known as a "lie" and a "smear?"

More corrections: citizens CAN take guns onto airplanes; they are inspected at check-in, and stored in proper boxes in the luggage compartment below the passengers.

We already know it is illegal to sell guns to felons. Did you just discover this?

[benEzra]

26. It doesn't prohibit laws against it, either.

You might as well say "1st Amendment does NOT prohibit child porn or snuff films." Which it doesn't, because the laws that restrict those things are in the U.S. Code, not the Constitution. :eyes:

The Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller upheld the prohibition against criminal gun possession while holding that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own guns for defensive purposes and other lawful purposes. The two are not contradictory; that's how we read the 1stA, the 4thA (convicted criminals in prison can be searched without probable cause), and so on.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

[Don Caballero]

3. If there is one problem I wish the President would confront it would be gun control

Limiting the amount of guns/ammo a civilian is allowed to own should be a law.

[farmout rightarm]

6. How about we limit the number of words you're allowed to write?

Would you be okay with that?
\

[Don Caballero]

15. I support the first amendment

I would support everyone's first amendment rights. The second amendment is not meant for civilians. Only standing armies, police forces and militias are guaranteed the right to bear arms.

[farmout rightarm]

17. Oh, so you're fine with rights YOU like but people who want to exercise theirs

can just go fuck themselves, right?

There are names for people who think that way but I think using them is against DU rules.

[Don Caballero]

18. Again, the second amendment does not apply to civilians

It applies to the military, police and state militia.

[farmout rightarm]

23. You are wrong. The courts say you are wrong. You lose.

...

[bossy22]

41. so the second amendment protects the right of the army to have weapons?

seems kinda like a silly provision if thats your take. I don't know many governments that prohibit their armed forces from having weapons (i think there is one country that did disband their military completely though); would kinda defeat the purpose of having an armed force don't ya think.

Listen we can argue all you want about what the theoretical meaning of the second amendment is but the fact is that currently, the amendment is individual in nature as was held in Heller V. D.C.

your arguement is seemingly close to the arguement that we can ban abortion because there is no consitutional right to one; even though the courts have held that there is.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. At least 8 of the current SC justices disagree with you.

[cowman]

107. Says you

but the courts say different as do the vast majority of americans

[X_Digger]

111. Not according to 73% of americans..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx

[Glassunion]

124. Here is a twist...

My state militia as per our constitution is defined as any male member of the commonwealth between the ages of 17 and 45.

However, the constitution forbids discrimination by age, sex, race or sexual orientation. So we now have all citizens 18 and over who are considered to be members of the militia.

And... The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

So... Seeing as how every single adult in my state qualifies as a member of the State Militia, the 2nd applies to all of us.

[PavePusher]

125. How odd, it says "the people" right there in the type...

I think your copy is deffective... You should try to get a refund or a replacement.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. Too bad you're completely wrong about that.

And then there are state constitutions to consider:

Right to Bear Arms.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

[beevul]

135. Good grief.

The second amendment applies to the government.

It is a restriction on governmental power.


I suggest you actually READ the bill of rights, including its preamble.


Then study constitutional theory some.


Then get back to us.

[Tim01]

136. You are just wrong. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

146. let's redo 7th grade civics.......

People have rights, governments have powers.

The Bill of Rights is a listing of restraints upon the government.

The people referred to in the 2nd Amendment are the same "people" referred to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, i.e. INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS!

It is a tremendous twist of logic to say that the 2nd Amendment only gives the GOVERNMENT the right to have guns.

[aikoaiko]

164. Given the scholarship of the Bill of Rights, your comment seems strange.

The people are the people and keeping and bearing arms is keeping and bearing arms. And those people either are or could be in the militia.

But the premise of the bill of rights is to protect the average people from government intrusion and excessive laws.

[Euromutt]

143. I don't think there's a rule against calling someone a hypocrite (n/t)

[X_Digger]

21. That's a new twist on an old dead meme..

You've piqued my interest. How exactly does the second amendment protect the police forces' arms?

(He says, chuckling..)

[TheWraith]

22. Yes, the second amendment IS intended explicitly for civilians.

It always has been. To say otherwise is to ignore hundreds of years of established precedent. That "militia" you refer to is a CIVILIAN militia, as explicitly defined in the various Militia Acts in federal law. If you're an able-bodied male age 17 to 45, you're included in the original definition of the "militia" going back to 1792.

[Don Caballero]

34. The militia pertains to the National Guard

These militias that were popping up in the 1990s were nothing but scared anti-government racist organizations. If the Founding Fathers could have seen what was being done in the name of a militia they would be very upset.

[farmout rightarm]

42. Okay, I get it...you're just being deliberately obtuse for amusement purposes.

Fun times. :D

[TheWraith]

61. The constitution defines two classes of militia: organized and unorganized.

The National Guards are an organized militia. The unorganized militia is legally defined as basically "everybody else." Literally, under federal law, any able-bodied male 17 to 45 is part of the unorganized militia. Some states also legally include women, such as Washington State. This has no bearing on groups of guys in the woods getting drunk and calling themselves a "militia." They're no more relevant to the legal definition of "militia" than a crack dealer calling himself a businessman is to the definition of interstate commerce.

Furthermore, the statements of the framers clearly explain that their intent was to protect private, civilian ownership of weaponry. Several other documents based on the bill of rights put it a little differently and more explicitly, such as PA's constitutional right for people to "bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state." Furthermore, only the most obtuse person could seriously argue against all legal precedent that "the right of the people" really is intended only to refer to the government.

[sharesunited]

67. Fighting for what and against whom? It has no relevance to modern day America.

It's just being used as an excuse for gun love.

[farmout rightarm]

Okay, I'll say what you're salivating to hear...I love my guns.

Now how exactly do you think you're going to persuade me to give them up?

Hint: not on your tintype, dearie...you might as well accept you don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of on this issue.

[sharesunited]

74. I know, I know. From your cold, dead hands.

[farmout rightarm]

76. Finally you get it.

Congratulations.

But you know what?...if push comes to shove, I and virtually all gun-owning Americans will even go to bat for your terrified butt. You won't even have to thank us.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

84. Nah, it might get your post deleted. He called me an idiot above, in frustration. It's ok.

[Callisto32]

120. Damn. Straight.

[TheWraith]

80. Fortunately constitutional rights don't have to meet your relevance test.

And I seriously doubt that the people involved in the estimated 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm per year in this country agree that the right to own a gun is obsolete. There's plenty of people out there who feel the way you do, though, and not just about the second amendment. After all, "unreasonable search and seizure" is pretty antiquated in an age of the danger of terrorism. So is "freedom of association." For anyone? Even terrorists!?

It's always interesting to see who's willing to throw the constitution into the fire when it's THEIR pet peeve.

[sharesunited]

82. Our freedoms are not without boundaries fashioned for the times.

Even Scalia says, when the technology allowing others to see inside your home becomes commonplace, you will no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside your home.

[farmout rightarm]

83. Well if Scalia sez it, it gotsa be Gospel.

Jeezusfukkinchrist...
\:eyes:

[sharesunited]

86. Gospel as in Law Of The Land? Unfortunately. And if writing for the majority, probably BAD law.

[TheWraith]

112. By that standard, we DO need to throw out guns. And also the internet.

And the right to safely and effectively terminate a pregnancy. Because none of our crazy-ass modern technology was provided for in the bill of rights, when the highest tech levels were flintlocks, sharpened quills, and lancing boils.

Or, maybe, the Constitution outlines a set of general principles: the rights to free expression, to privacy, to self defense, etcetera, that are universal and have nothing to do with your assertion that "the times" change. That sounds to me suspiciously like how the Bushies tried to justify throwing the first, fourth, and eighth amendments out the window because they were "quaint" and "just a piece of paper." Because, after all, "the times" demanded it.

So fuck Scalia, and the belief that I don't have a right to privacy, to due process, and to self defense.

[rrneck]

95. Soooooo,

People who own guns may, at any moment, for any reason, just go crazy and start shooting. But a government composed of the same people could never become oppressive to the point of inciting insurrection.

:rofl:

[Callisto32]

121. Didn't you hear?

G-Men are the only ones "professional enough." LOLz

[SteveM]

154. I preferred "The FBI Story"...

Some of the more cinematic gun-controllers claim "machine guns" and such are designed to be fired from the hip, i.e. Edward G. Robinson-style. I tell them that if they are that into movies as a source of data, then look at the Tommy-gun training sequence in "The FBI Story:" they are all shooting from the shoulder. As designed.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. See: Koreatown, downtown LA, 1992

THAT is the proper fuction of a citizen militia, defending the security of a free state.

[pipoman]

145. Damn, you are sure stuck on

a 'because I haven't seen it it will never happen', head in the sand, philosophy of the world, huh? Just so you realize, the history of humanity on this planet is what, 30,000 years give or take? Only in the last 100 years (give or take a few) have humans had the luxury of electric lights, indoor climate control (beyond fires and opening windows), non-animal transportation, and the list goes on and on...29,900 out of the last 30,000 people have burned wood/coal for heat, animal fat for light and walked most places. In the history of civilization there have been no cultures, ever, who have not had to defend themselves from outside aggressors. Suddenly, because you were born, the previous 29.950 years of human history are meaningless and will never, read can't, be repeated....you are short sighted at best....thank dog you are in the extreme minority.

[rrneck]

89. I'd love to see some supporting documentation for that claim. nt

[farmout rightarm]

98. His Magic Eightball not only predicts the future, it explains events in the past that didn't happen.

I want one of those.

[Callisto32]

119. Uhhhh.

The National Guard wasn't even a pipe dream when the constitution was ratified.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. The national guard was formed in the 1930's.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers weren't talking about it in 1791.


Let's do the time warp agaaaaaaain

[Euromutt]

144. Actually, it was 1903, with the Dick Act, but the point stands

The point being that by the time state militias were formed into the National Guard, every last framer of the constitution had been dead for decades.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Dagnabbit.

You're right, though it's form changed via acts of congress a few times, but man.. Wish I could claim I just transposed the 0 and the 3, but I did that in another place in the thread too. :)

[SteveM]

153. Hammeringly wrong again. nt

[Old Codger]

30. You might want

To try to explain why in the first amendment the "people" means everyone and in the second it means only armies??? Can't wait to hear this one.... come on with it.. should be very very interesting.


First:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


second:

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.

Same word same spelling and everything....

[Don Caballero]

40. It is very implicit. The militia means the National Guard and the PEOPLE are those

who make up the National Guard. The Founding Fathers never intended to have civilians have access to firearms.

[bossy22]

45. I don't think so

militia in the U.S. is comprised of all males age 17-45 according to the consitution and subsequent laws passed. Basically the militia is broken down into two groups- the organized (national guard) and the unorganized (everyone else). So i am curious how you can make such an assumption about the second amendment when it comes to the meaning of militia. Last time i checked i never saw the words "national guard" in the second amendment.

[farmout rightarm]

48. Wait one fucking minute: Just who the hell do you think fought the revolutionary war?

jeezusfuckingchrist...

[sharesunited]

69. The same kind of folks who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Which is why it is an obsolete concept today.

[farmout rightarm]

73. So...the civilian militiamen who fought the Redcoats and the confederates who

defended slavery and secession are the same. Got it. Now I see what your problem is.

[sharesunited]

77. Let's try to find any differences. Looking. Looking.

[SteveM]

157. You take "tombstone research" to new levels. Don't get any on you. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

131. Civil war, 1861, Washington state constitution, 1889

"Right to Bear Arms.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Obsolete my ass.

[SteveM]

156. Not content with the living, you cast aspersions to the grave. nt

[TheWraith]

65. Perhaps you'd like to explain that to Jefferson.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom..."

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff20.htm

[cowman]

110. Once again

says you but not the courts or the vast majority of americans

[Old Codger]

116. Sorry but

that dog don't hunt, if the "people" In the second are only the militia then the "people" in the first must also be the militia, you cannot have it both way s much as you would like to. It has been decided many times that the "militia" of the day included "All able bodied men" You cannot pick and choose how to define words to fit your desires....

Now I am pretty sure I can never change your stance on this, and I know for a fact that you will never change mine, I have read everything I can that has bearing on this issue... dating back to roman days the sign of a free man has been the fact that he was allowed to be armed, in fact when a slave was given his freedom he was presented with a sword as a sign of freedom. here is a link to some info on the second amendment, if oyu are open minded enough to read facts rather than follow dogma you will go there and read about it, as I said I doubt that it will change your mind but what the hell, you have nothing to lose by learning something about what you choose to condemn.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/haljuris.html

[AtheistCrusader]

129. Who did the founding fathers want to have those guns between 1791 and 1930?

No one?

[beevul]

137. Except you have the entire context wrong.

The bill of rights - the one that was actually ratified and contains the second amendment (as opposed to whatever it is your're reading) contains many restrictions on governmental power.

Heres some basic constitutional theory for you:

The constitution authorizes government, and authorizes it to function, grants it powers...etc etc.

The bill of rights, on the other hand, tells government what it SHALL NOT DO.

I'll just bet you don't believe that, and need proof.


Here you go:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

Thats the beginning of the preamble to the bill of rights. It states EXPLICITLY, that in order to prevent government from misconstruing or abusing the powers granted to it by he constitution, that declaratory and restricted clauses should be added.

And added they were:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law...

Theres a restrictive clause. Restricted the government.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, (same as "because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state)...


Thats a declaratory clause

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Infringed by whom? Government, of course. Just the same as "congress shall make no law..."

Thats a restrictive clause.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Whos soldiers does amendment 3 refer to? The governments of course.


I could go on, but if you don't see the commonality, and how it mirrors what the preamble states, you never will.

[SteveM]

155. Hhh-h-h-h, Hhhh-h-h-h. He said "implicit".... more errors:

the militia does NOT mean the National Guard, as the latter came about over a century after militia were referenced in the Constitution.

Which Founding Fathers "never intended to have civilians have access to firearms"? Cite them. It is your responsibility; otherwise, you are making stuff up and being intellectually dishonest.

[baldguy]

32. Trying to bring facts to a discussion in the gungeon -

Like trying to dowse a forest fire with a water pistol.

[farmout rightarm]

50. We're still waiting to hear some from you.

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Is that why you never bring any?

[beevul]

138. How would you know? N/T

[SteveM]

158. Facts: got any? nt

[Dappleganger]

46. You mean corporate oppressors and racist landowners.

Let's keep the poor,feeble and minorities in line now, shall we?

:sarcasm:

[scrinmaster]

132. Why the hell would they need to say that the army has a right to bear arms?

[SteveM]

152. Keep setting up that target, we'll keep knocking it down...

The Second Amendment IS made for civilians. You are WRONG when you say "only standing armies, police forces and militias are guaranteed the right to bear arms." This has been disproved time and time again.

Tell me, is that the new mantra of gun-controllers? Ignore evidence, facts, data, and keep repeating the same ol' clinkety-clank crap?

Here's a primer, if you are into education: Laurence Tribe, the most ardent supporter of the "militia clause" (roughly the outlook you espouse) said in 1999 that after studying the Second Amendment further, he concluded that the Amendment guarantees an "individual right to keep and bear arms." Wanna cite, or can you do that on your own?

He changed his mind. Let's see you do so. Ready........?

[TheWraith]

20. And why do you think that would do anything about crime?

Do you think a collector, who owns 30 or 40 rifles/handguns/shotguns, is somehow more dangerous than a guy who owns just one? Do you think that someone who has, say, 10,000 rounds stockpiled for target shooting (which is only about $400 worth of the most common caliber) is more likely to kill someone than a guy who just has 8 rounds in a pistol mag?

The fact is that you're reacting on an emotional basis, not a logical one. You don't like guns, you don't like ammo, so you want the law to punish people who do.

[Don Caballero]

43. I just want the killing to end

Why would people collect guns? That seems really odd to me. Do they feel more power as they accumulate more deadly weapons and ammo?

[TheWraith]

71. Again, you're basing your ideas on an emotional reaction.

And you assume that everyone else is as well. Something I might do someday is put together a collection of authentic rifles used in World War II, particularly the ETO: A Mauser 98K, Enfield SMLE Mark III, M1 Garand, Mosin-Nagant 91/30. Does being a history geek mean I'm seeking power?

You have an instinctive negative reaction to guns. The problem is when you start trying to use that emotional reaction as a basis to tell others what to do. Then you're doing something really not much different from the right-wingers who justify their dislike of gays based on "It's just wrong" and "God says so." If you can't mount a coherent, fact-based defense of your ideas, and sustain them through a vigorous debate and scientific testing, then you have to reexamine how you feel and see if it's valid.

You can't ban things that you find "odd" or objectionable. What happens when I have a negative reaction to something you do? Maybe I don't like the fact that you eat sausage and eggs for breakfast. That kills more people in America than guns, so shouldn't I be entitled to have it banned? Even though it doesn't affect me personally? How about secondhand smoke?

We have laws designed to create a reasonable aura of safety in our lives. Cars are mechanically inspected, guns aren't sold to criminals, and smokers can't light up inside a restaurant. Beyond that, you don't have much expectation of being able to control others.

[HALO141]

99. How special for you.

Please stop projecting your own emotional shortcomings on the rest of us.

Thanks.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. Same reason they collect stamps and baseball cards I guess.

[cowman]

114. The reason

I collect guns is for the value of them. I bought my AR-15 about 4 years ago (pre ban) for, get this, 400.00 and now it's worth appox 1000.00. My AK is worth about 800.00 and so on and so forth. Not because I feel Power which pretty much all legal firearm owner don't feel. Obviously you have no clue what your talking about which is pretty much the normal for you

[Callisto32]

122. You know what, I'm all for ending the killing.

And let's disarm the greatest killers of all, the governments. You aren't anti-gun, you are elitist. Pure and simple. Either that or you reside under a bridge. Yeah, I said it.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. I categorize by range and purpose.

I have a shotgun for home defense, and another for upland birds, the two purposes are mutually exclusive, plus a third my wife uses for home defense, that has a shorter stock, because her arms are slightly shorter than mine, it's a safety thing.

I have a close-range high powered lever action for Grizzlies, Moose, and Polar Bears, and a pair of long-range bolt-actions for deer and elk. (I have not yet been far enough north to worry about polar bears, but there's always next year)

I have pistols of various types and purposes, for concealed carry, competition, and open carry.

Since I can only practically use one gun at a time, to answer your question, no I do not feel MORE powerful as I increase my firearms collection, I feel more capable to meet XYZ need with the appropriate tool for the job. The .45-70 lever gun isn't going to work for ducks, and the duck gun isn't going to work for a pissed off grizzly.

I spend entirely too much time out-of-doors where there are predators, to worry about your tender sensibilities.

[baldguy]

60. Pot, kettle.

[cowman]

106. Yeah

good luck on that. Pres Obama has run as far away from gun control as he can and rightly so. It is a losing topic for him and he is smart enough to recognize it.

[SteveM]

151. Then the President would have to confront Democratic losses, including his. nt

[farmout rightarm]

4. Good for Kessler. That asshole Bloomberg is WAY out of bounds.

...

[baldguy]

7. Why do supposed "gun enthusiasts" support sales of guns to criminals?

[farmout rightarm]

8. We don't. That particular lie, common as it is, just reflects the idiocy of its claimants.

...

[baldguy]

10. Saying Bloomberg is "way out of bounds" for exposing illegal gun trafficking indicates otherwise.

And you're avoiding the question.

[farmout rightarm]

13. I didn't avoid it, I answered it. Are you seriously suggesting I did not?

Please do not reproduce.
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11947356

[baldguy]

51. You didn't. The law is being flouted every time a straw purchase is made.

When state authorities do nothing to enforce the law & blocks fed authorities from doing so, you cheer. But when Bloomberg exposes the racket, you cry "foul!" and whine about "states rights" bullshit.

Meanwhile criminals get their guns & you want NOTHING to be done about it.

So, the question remains: Why do supposed "gun enthusiasts" support sales of guns to criminals?

[farmout rightarm]

53. I'm dropping out of this discussion with you before I call a spade a spade

and get in trouble for it.
Don't bother replying.

[baldguy]

57. And so the fact remains: gun enthusiasts support sales of guns to criminals

[X_Digger]

81. See post #12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[baldguy]

90. Ignoring the question and it's implications doesn't make it go away.

And "I know you are, but what am I?" is not an argument.

[X_Digger]

105. You do realize, in essence, that's what you're saying?

I won't respond to a badly formed false dilemna / false dichotomy any more than I respond to ad hominem's.

You provide a false 'either / or' choice, when there are a multitude of choices in between the two 'choices' you present.

Step it up a notch, join the grown up talk. I'm sure you can come up with a more coherent argument, please present it.

[Euromutt]

160. No more than you do

There are ATF agents who have stated that Bloomberg's antics have fucked up several of their investigations. They'd be investigating a trafficker whose straw purchasers would frequent some of the gun shows in question, but upon seeing Bloomberg's videos, they'd cease operations and go into hiding. Several months of work and possible convictions down the drain in every instance. Bloomberg's lucky that unwittwingly fucking up an actual law enforcement investigation doesn't meet the criteria for "obstruction of justice." Fact remains that Bloomberg has actually done several gun traffickers a favor by alerting them while they were under investigation.

That's evidently what you support, baldguy.

[X_Digger]

12. False dichotomy

"If you don't agree with what I say, you must support X!"

Really, you should bring your "A" game.

[farmout rightarm]

14. That IS her "A" game.

:eyes: :shrug: :silly:

[Callisto32]

123. The Wicker

It burns.

[beevul]

139. Why do suppposed "Democrats" support the republican founded and led brady bunch?

See? I can play that game too.

[krispos42]

141. We don't.

However, the system to determine if such a sale is happening is rather non-existent. So, what to do?

[Euromutt]

142. Here's a hypothetical scenario for you

Let's say there's an organized crime ring operating in a given state; let's say they're really ruthless and evil bastards. The state law enforcement agency and a number of local agencies set up a joint task force to shut down the ring's activities. Now, let's say that in the rush to set it up, adequate oversight on the task force's operation is neglected, and after a while, it emerges that the task force has been overstepping the bounds of legal authority: they've been conducting searches and wiretaps without warrants, getting physical while questioning sources, and even carrying out a couple of extrajudicial killings of ring members whom they suspect they couldn't get convicted, but were certain were guilty.

Now, when all this comes to light, and I'm one of the people calling for the task force to be disbanded and its members disciplined and, where applicable, prosecuted, does that mean I support whatever criminal activities the organized crime ring is into?

[SteveM]

159. You have again repeated this gross untruth.

It is your responsibility to support YOUR contention that "'gun enthusiasts' support sales of guns to criminals."

Until you do this, you are engaging in a completely dishonest line of reasoning. An example: "why do supposed "bald guys" support loving-up to thugs?"

[aikoaiko]

11. Bloomberg is lucky the BATFE didn't prosecute his private investigators

if they actually performed straw purchasea.

It is the job of the BATFE to investigate FFLs who knowingly allow a straw purchases - not the Mayor of NYC.

If anything, the Mayor should have worked with the BATFE (but I'm sure they wouldn't want him compromising investigations).

I've seen the video tapes and some of the so-called straw purchases were iffy -- some were blatant.

If the Gov. of VA sent up investigators to investigate bloomberg.com or wallstreet for insider trading, I;'m sure the Mayor wouldn't be very happy either.

There is a way to investigate bad FFL dealers, and Bloomberg was is not the right way.

[baldguy]

24. The problem, of course is that if they prosecuted Bloomberg

they'd have to prosecute all the thousands of other "straw purchases" as well. The NRA & the gun manufacturers wouldn't like that - they make too much money off the illegal arms trade that goes on.

And if VA had cause to investigate Wall St, they'd find NY authorities & law enforcement very supportive. You see, unlike the wet-noodle Dep Fife law enforcement in the Free Gun states, NY takes a very dim view of it's financial services industry knowingly breaking the laws of ANY jurisdiction - be it locally in NY, or another state, or at the federal level or internationally.

[TheWraith]

27. The BATF prosecutes straw purchases all the time.

As well as illegal sellers and crooked dealers. They're well known for it.

[farmout rightarm]

31. Well, you know what...all this back and forth silliness is unproductive. Here's the question:

You think I (and way WAY over half of Americans and Democrats) ought to lose the rights we claim to have under the 2A. How exactly do you think you or the jackboots are going to get your way? I think Charlton Heston was a little bit goofy in some ways but I'll adopt his statement "out of my cold dead hands" because it's something I believe in and not you or any fascist is going to deprive me of my rights without a fight.

[baldguy]

39. I think every gun should be registered and every gun owner should be licensed.

And guns that aren't registered are illegal and gun owners that aren't licensed are criminals.

Why do you support criminals having guns?

[slackmaster]

49. Registration leads to confiscation; we don't require licenses to exercise civil rights

Like voting, free speech, protection against unreasonable searches, etc.

[baldguy]

56. Gee, those mass confiscations in Canada, the UK - and in NY - are legendary.

Meaning they are LEGENDS - as in never happened. And they're not about to either - no matter what all the well-funded, fear mongering, irrational RW NRA propaganda says.

[bossy22]

70. actually the UK confiscated all handguns

in 1996....canada is talking about having a total handgun ban/confiscation at some point and in new york its been talked about for so called assault weapons and .50 Cal rifles

[Glassunion]

130. Stop it with the facts...

You're ruining a perfectly emotional conversation...

[X_Digger]

108. See images within..

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

109. You know it happened in California.

that one state... in America. It's also happened in other countries as well.
Registration can (and has) led to confiscation.

Also, take into account registration does NOTHING to stop the cirrculation of black or grey market guns.
It's just another law that would be broken in the process. We don't need more trumped-up charges, we need results.

[slackmaster]

117. California. SKS rifles with detachable magazines. Look it up.

People in the UK and Australia were obligated to turn in handguns. Don't pretend it didn't happen.

Let me put it this way: I don't trust all future governments to respect peoples' rights. We've seen enough infringements in the last eight years or so to make it abundantly clear that some people cannot be trusted.

Without registration, confiscation would be exceedingly difficult.

[AtheistCrusader]

162. Move along nothing to see here oh hey what's this

Your guns are going to be illegal tomorrow, here's $50 for your thousand-dollar weapon, get it while you can, before you become a criminal
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
Noooo that's not 'confiscation' is it?


The UK is even confiscating and destroying fake/toy/replicas
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4667531.stm

[aikoaiko]

78. Not really a problem, because only a few (mostly his that we know of) are on video tape.

Yes, I think NY authorities and the SEC would welcome input from the the Gov of VA, but they would not tolerate the Gov of VA sending Private Investigators who break the law in the pursuit of showing how financial managers break the law. The BATFE should have been consulted if not in charge of the investigation of non-NYC FFLS.

[cowman]

115. Jeeeez

I can't even keep up with this persons dribble.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. This is a State's Rights issue For W. Va.

Technically, Kessler is right...
Joint efforts and special agreements notwithstanding, it's not appropriate for anyone other than the feds to investigate what goes on inside of W.VA.

Probably not the best policy but certainly within thier power.
Would you want Joe Arpaio running his infamous illegal immigrant stings in Texas, New Mexico, and California?
Maybe, maybe not... but it's those states rights to tell an outsider to GTFO.

[baldguy]

44. And what responsability does the state have?

At the very least it's to ensure that laws aren't flagrantly violated within their state.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

52. I'm not sure a state is responsible for flagrantly violated laws.

Similar to the fashion in which police officers have no legal duty or obligation to protect people not in thier custody...
I'm no legal expert, but I'm not sure a state has any legal responsibility to ensure that laws aren't flagrantly violated.
Otherwise you could sue your state when a crime is committed against you because the state failed to enforce laws.

You might have to take that one to court to see what responsibility they do have.
I think it would make an interesting case.
On the flip side, I do know that laws must be uniformly enforced on the populace (ie: no dicrimination).

[baldguy]

87. State law enforcement authorities have no obligation to investigate & prosecute crimes?

Sounds like that RW libertarian paradise of Somalia. No taxes either!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

94. Show me a statute where they have obligation to investigate & prosecute crimes then...

If they are legally obligated, as you seem to insinuate, then there must be some written or case law that provides such a mandate. If there is no law, then there is no obligation.

[one-eyed fat man]

148. the police are not obligated

A cop can be standing there and watch you get robbed, raped and beaten and he is under no obligation to come to your aid, intervene, or offer you any assistance. Period. End of story!

The courts have repeatedly ruled that only if you happen to be in the State's custody does the state have any obligation to protect you.

In simple terms, if they got your stupid ass in jail, locked up in a mental hospital, or you are somehow their prisoner they are required to come to your aid. Barring that, as long as the state provides for police protection at large you as an individual have no right to or expectation of assistance in your personal circumstance.

If they come and draw a chalk outline around your dead ass, they have gone above and beyond what they have to do.

[Tim01]

54. What business does the mayor of New York have in freakin West Virginia?

Sting operation? Try stupid, shallow, self important ,incompetent vigilante.

[TheWraith]

62. Bloomberg doesn't give a fuck about anyone else's business.

Just look at the situation him and his Wall Street and Real Estate Board of NY buddies have been trying to create in NYS, trying to basically create a plutarchy. Bloomberg wants to run the world.

[X_Digger]

113. It's a sting when endorsed, entrapment when not.. hehe n/t

[virgogal]

63. Bloomberg should stick to trans-fats and tobacco. Isn't that what mayors do?

[rrneck]

85. Call the mayor

of a neighboring city and demand he put a bunch of carefully edited bullshit on youtube?

[spin]

93. "The mayor has spent millions hiring private investigators "...

I hope that the money he spent came out of his own pocket.

[Callisto32]

118. This is a jurisdiction issue.

[Merchant Marine]

133. Good job demonstrating a devastating ignorance of the meaning behind the word "Jurisdiction"

This is the job of BATFE, not the private eyes hired by a mayor from a different state.

[krispos42]

140. Looks like the investigators are out of their juristiction

Which would be an excellent reason to stop them. Especially if the investigators are using entrapment as a tool.


If I was a private citizen selling a firearm in a private transfer and the guy I was selling it too mentioned that he couldn't pass a background check, I would still sell him the gun AFTER I had taken a picture of his driver's license. And then I'd call the cops ASAP.