gun show loophole rant

Quote: s2dbaker

Is it your position that a citizen of the United States who calls himself a member of Al Qaeda can have his citizenship revoked?

Yes, based on the fact that you can lose it for:

Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S.

Quote: QuadDeuces

If you can be imprisoned indefinitely without charges, trial or judicial oversight then it really doesn't matter what rights you have while you're there.

You like going off on tangents. My original statement was that non-citizens do not have the full rights that American citizens do. You have thus far presented no counter-argument.

Quote: QuadDeuces

The only certainty with this government is that we're being lied to. You can choose to guzzle what they're spewing. I do not.

You can choose to guzzle conspiracy theories. I do not.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, based on the fact that you can lose it for:

Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S.

So, if the government decides that you ( not the royal you but You as in AZDuffman ) are a member of Al Qaeda, you can have your citizenship revoked. You're okay with that, right?

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, based on the fact that you can lose it for:

Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S.

Al Qaeda is not a country, nor is there a nation at war with the United States.

Quote: Beethoven9th

You like going off on tangents. My original statement was that non-citizens do not have the full rights that American citizens do. You have thus far presented no counter-argument.

I was actually commenting on your assertion that the Constitution operates on Citizens. It does not. It operates on governments. I can send you a link to a copy if you want to read it sometime.

The pertinent parts of the Bill of Rights that apply to the maltreatment of detainees, the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, are silent on the subject of citizenship.

Quote: QuadDeuces

I was actually commenting on your assertion that the Constitution operates on Citizens. It does not. It operates on governments. I can send you a link to a copy if you want to read it sometime.

You might want to scroll back and read what I actually wrote. (It's amazing how my plain English seems to mean whatever you want it to mean) I can send you a link to my comment though if you want to read it sometime.

Quote: QuadDeuces

The pertinent parts of the Bill of Rights that apply to the maltreatment of detainees, the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, are silent on the subject of citizenship.

Your copy of the Constitution must be written in crayon because nowhere does it state that enemy combatants have the full rights of Americans.

Quote: s2dbaker

So, if the government decides that you ( not the royal you but You as in AZDuffman ) are a member of Al Qaeda, you can have your citizenship revoked. You're okay with that, right?

I am not a member nor have I ever been nor will I ever be. You asked a question and I answered it. As usual you seem to have lost the point on merit and are trying to deflect the conversation.

Quote: Face

1,100 posts, let’s not start name calling now. As almost always, I think a little education could go a long way. Remember it’s mostly non-gunners that want guns gone, and how could a non-gunner know these things?

It's not name calling. It was a stupid statement/thought/justification because it is obviously dead wrong. The burden of knowing what an item actually does is on the person seeking to restrict it. The justifications for regulation are completely irrational.

Quote: Face

Full metal jacket rounds (FMJ) are a lead bullet covered with a metal sheath. They’re cheap and a very common type of round. Let’s use 9mm as our standard. The 9mm is an extremely fast round. If using an FMJ, the round is almost certainly going to zip right through a person. That’s big reason LEOs have moved away from it in favor of the .40. There are tons of reports of people being shot with FMJ 9mm and not even noticing they were shot. The high speed coupled with the FMJ doesn’t allow the bullet to deform and “mushroom”, it just punches a clean, 9mm hole through a body.

This isn't strictly relevant, but the 9mm narrative here--- which is very popular in the shooting community--- is based on myths and half truths.

Quote: AZDuffman

I am not a member nor have I ever been nor will I ever be. You asked a question and I answered it.

You haven't answered my question yet. Suppose for a moment that the government thinks that you are a member of Al Qaeda (despite all evidence to the contrary, but that evidence is not immediately available to them). Are you okay with the government stripping you of citizenship?

Quote: s2dbaker

You haven't answered my question yet. Suppose for a moment that the government thinks that you are a member of Al Qaeda (despite all evidence to the contrary, but that evidence is not immediately available to them). Are you okay with the government stripping you of citizenship?

Obviously there would be some kind of trial for me to defend myself, and obviously I would not want to pay a penalty for something I did not do. Why do you ask? Are you trying to compare me to the people Obama is holding in Gitmo or something?

Quote: AZDuffman

Obviously there would be some kind of trial for me to defend myself, and obviously I would not want to pay a penalty for something I did not do. Why do you ask? Are you trying to compare me to the people Obama is holding in Gitmo or something?

I'm not "trying" to do anything. Since you've been stripped of your citizenship, you are no longer entitled to a trial. You may get a military tribunal at some unspecified future date at which point you can make your case with a layer that is assigned to you by the government, that you are not a member of Al Qaeda. That's okay with you, right?

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm not "trying" to do anything. Since you've been stripped of your citizenship, you are no longer entitled to a trial. You may get a military tribunal at some unspecified future date at which point you can make your case with a layer that is assigned to you by the government, that you are not a member of Al Qaeda. That's okay with you, right?

You will not be able to be stripped of your citizenship without a trial. So your point is moot. But if the government starts doing this left and right that is a reason we have the right to keep and bear arms.

Quote: AZDuffman

But if the government starts doing this left and right that is a reason we have the right to keep and bear arms.

That is so true. I don't think liberals understand that the 2nd Amendment is for their protection against the government as well.

Quote: AZDuffman

You will not be able to be stripped of your citizenship without a trial. So your point is moot.

I'm not certain that I was making a point. I was asking a question. Let's look at what you told me just a little while ago:

Quote: s2dbaker

Is it your position that a citizen of the United States who calls himself a member of Al Qaeda can have his citizenship revoked?

Your response was:

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, based on the fact that you can lose it for:

Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S.

Let me try to reconcile those two statements and then you may clarify. If you are deemed an enemy combatant by the government and you are also a United States citizen, you have due process rights only while your citizenship is contested. If you lose the citizenship case and all subsequent appeals, then you can lose your due process rights and be sent to Guantanamo. Do I have that correct?

Seems to me that you're implying the government would strip your citizenship prior to a trial. I think that is incorrect. I believe there would be a trial as a citizen is innocent until proven guilty. So your question has no relevance. If the government starts handing out guilty verdicts without trials then this country would be screwed.

Edit:
Nevermind, s2d clarified his remarks.

Quote: bbvk05

The burden of knowing what an item actually does is on the person seeking to restrict it. The justifications for regulation are completely irrational.

Completely agree with both points.

Quote: bbvk05

This isn't strictly relevant, but the 9mm narrative here--- which is very popular in the shooting community--- is based on myths and half truths.

Which part? Don't get caught up on the "9mm" part, it's just the one I used because it's very common. FMJ or "ball" ammo, regardless if it's 9mm, .40, .45, 10mm, all are very likely to punch right through. Granted, I've never shot flesh with one to judge for myself, but based on every shooter / SD forum bar none, reports beyond number from police, and word of mouth from those who have, they all agree that FMJ punches holes and is likely to keep on going.

we have to get this thread more posts LOL.....I would consider it an accomplishment if I had a WoV top 5 thread :)

Don't worry, when the 2nd Amendment is under assault again, we'll be sure to post. ;)

Quote: vert1276

we have to get this thread more posts LOL.....I would consider it an accomplishment if I had a WoV top 5 thread :)

Uh, this is #3 and climbing.

Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, this is #3 and climbing.

Shooting straight to the top.

Don't forget to store your weapons safely on your way to the shooting gallery.

Monty Python, self-defense class

http://screen.yahoo.com/customers-prevent-robbery-mcdonalds-120014017.html

Thank god this happened in a country where guns are basically illegal, otherwise the robber may have had one.



Oh wait, I'm a liberal now, and have replaced my actual brain with applesauce and the cheese that comes out of a can, so if this doesn't make my point, then you are intolerant!!!!!

Quote: Maverick17

..brain with applesauce and the cheese that comes out of a can

So a guy with a gun tries to rob a fast food store and fails because people who don't have guns intervene and tackle the would be thief.

Okay, could you explain how having more guns there would have made the outcome better?

Good enough to kill your sister with and comes in many bright colors.

Quote: s2dbaker

So a guy with a gun tries to rob a fast food store and fails because people who don't have guns intervene and tackle the would be thief.

Okay, could you explain how having more guns there would have made the outcome better?

The people who tackled him wouldn't have gotten dirty, and skinned their knees if they could have just shot him. :)

Quote: s2dbaker

Good enough to kill your sister with and comes in many bright colors.

aww...you liberal trolls are so cute....I just want to pinch your cheeks you're so cute

I didn't get the girls a Crickett. I got them a CZ452 Scout.

Quote: QuadDeuces

I didn't get the girls a Crickett. I got them a CZ452 Scout.

I got a marlin model 60....40 million sold cant be wrong :)......although the CZ is a much higher quality rifle!

Quote: vert1276

I got a marlin model 60....40 million sold cant be wrong :)......although the CZ is a much higher quality rifle!

Just teach the kids not to use it near the pool. With all the accidental drownings we really need to ban pools.

Quote: AZDuffman

With all the accidental drownings we really need to ban pools.

+1

It's sad though that the gunphobes don't even see the irony here.

Quote: Beethoven9th

+1

It's sad though that the gunphobes don't even see the irony here.

We regulate swimming pools. Does it save lives? Probably.

Quote:

Law requires that new residential swimming pools have at least one of the following: an enclosure, pool safety cover, exit alarms on doors, or self-closing, self-latching devices on entries to the pool. The enclosure must be a barrier at least four feet high on the outside and surround the perimeter of the pool. Gates to the swimming pool must also be equipped with self-closing and self-latching locking devices. The residence may be used as one side of the barrier if it does not contain doors or windows that provide access to the swimming pool.

Quote: rxwine

We regulate swimming pools. Does it save lives? Probably.

We also regulate guns, but that's not good enough for some people.

Quote: rxwine

We regulate swimming pools. Does it save lives? Probably.

But people still die in them. We really need to limit them to three feet of depth. Nobody needs more than that since you can cool off just fine in three feet.

Yeah, you're right. Just keep your gun laws right where they are. They're just perfect.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, you're right. Just keep your gun laws right where they are. They're just perfect.

Not really, we need "shall issue" conceal-carry in all states and reciprocity for carry permits state-to-state.

Sounds like a great idea for an experiment. Good luck with that.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really, we need "shall issue" conceal-carry in all states and reciprocity for carry permits state-to-state.

I'd be all for that if you gun owners weren't so stupid and knew how to keep you Liberty Slugs of Freedom away from other people's property, hips and arms.

Manchin-Toomey really would have put a dent in that unbelievably low accidental shooting rate. You should keep prattling on about the least important dangers associated with firearm ownership.

Significantly more people are killed by CAFE standards for vehicles than by accidental shooting... but you don't see me linking to every car wreck and nothing that liberals are f***ing idiots for forcing that on us.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really, we need "shall issue" conceal-carry in all states and reciprocity for carry permits state-to-state.

"A little more New Hampshire, a lot less New York."

Paid for by friends of AZDuffman.

Quote: Face

"A little more New Hampshire, a lot less New York."

Paid for by friends of AZDuffman.

+2

Quote: bbvk05

Manchin-Toomey really would have put a dent in that unbelievably low accidental shooting rate. You should keep prattling on about the least important dangers associated with firearm ownership.

Significantly more people are killed by CAFE standards for vehicles than by accidental shooting... but you don't see me linking to every car wreck and nothing that liberals are f***ing idiots for forcing that on us.

You're comparing cars and guns. So you must believe that cars and guns should have similar regulations? I'm all for that! Let's have all guns registered in a statewide database that's shared among the states. You have to register your guns and pay a registration fee every year. You have to have your gun insured against accidental releases of liberty slugs. You have to have your weapon inspected every year.

I like the way you think!

Quote: s2dbaker

You're comparing cars and guns. So you must believe that cars and guns should have similar regulations? I'm all for that! Let's have all guns registered in a statewide database that's shared among the states. You have to register your guns and pay a registration fee every year. You have to have your gun insured against accidental releases of liberty slugs. You have to have your weapon inspected every year.

I like the way you think!

I like the way you think too! Anybody over 18 should be able to buy and sell them freely without state approval. No license or registration requirements to buy and use the item on your own private property--- license and registration only required when you use the item in a way that is funded by the government. Anybody over 16 should be able to posses them. Every state would have to allow their use if they are properly owned according to the laws of the owner's state (including states that have minimal or no insurance requirements or have minimal or non-registration). There should be no real restrictions on size, capacity, or design beyond product defect requirements. No federal licensing for individuals.

The regulations you cherry pick are cute, but demonstrably have no serious effect on gun violence.

And no, I was not comparing guns and cars or their relative regulations. I am comparing the 0 lives that would have been saved under the recent gun control legislation vs. the actual loss of life that are caused by democrat policies that try to favor the environment over people's lives. They even fail at that though because CAFE just lowers the price of gas and people drive more... creating the same amount of emissions with just more deaths added the the equation.

Why are you whining for things that will have zero effect when you could be talking about things that kill people where a slight legislative change would actually work?

Christ all Friday, it’s the car argument again. Let’s try once and for all to smash this nonsense proposal dead.

Fact: Hand guns are the primary firearm used in a crime by an indisputable majority, something like >80% of all firearm crimes are a hand gun related. That’s perfect for us because hand gun laws vary state by state from no regs at all to something similar to, and in some cases, more restrictive than, the car game. So let’s take a look.

In 5 states, handguns are “no issue” by law or practice. These are D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey. Based on the US’ gun murder per 100,000, D.C smashed the top of the list with 16.5 (more than double 2nd place Louisiana). Maryland ranks 4th, Illinois stays in the top half at 22nd, and NJ is right behind at 23rd. Only Hawaii follows the “less is less” principle, ranking a very safe 48th.

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, 6 states have no restrictions at all. You can just go to the store and get a pistol. These are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Montana (except metro), Vermont and Wyoming. Arizona is the highest ranked at 11th with 3.6 murders per 100k. Arkansas tries to stay bloodthirsty at 15th, and Alaska is barely hanging in the top half at 24th. By the time we get to pistol packing Montana, we’ve already fallen to 37th, Wyoming doesn’t show its face until 41st, and Vermont comes dead last at 50th.

This is cut and dry. The highly restrictive states, with one single exception, are all in the top half, with one fighting for the lead against an area that so destroys the competition it’s not even close. On the other hand, unhinged gun ownership, worst case, only makes 11th place nationally and averages well into the bottom half.

If you want a good car analogy, let’s move into the “shall issue” states. These are the ones in which you have to apply, hope they give you one, register it, the whole 9. All of them hover solidly in the middle, with no wayward outliers. They’re just sitting there smack in the middle (Alabama highest at 21st, Rhode Island lowest at 33rd).

Now look at all of this, and what does it tell you? Me, it tells me two things. First, it ever so slightly leans towards the old adage “an armed society is a polite society”. Second, if anything, it shows that laws are simply not the answer. If you still truly believe that you can legislate this problem away, please, reconcile for me the obvious flaw in logic shown above re gun laws and gun murder rate.

For the love of all that is holy, I been saying it this whole time. Focus on the laws and you aren't going to do a goddamn thing. So far we have a lot of bullshit rhetoric, some bullshit laws proposed, and everything's been shot down, leaving us right in the same spot we've always been in.

Good job, America /golf clap.

First known 3d gun printed and fired. (at least by a private citizen)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/

So, they are putting up the plans on a website to make it freely available. And probably will work on improvement.

This was inevitable.

The history of making dangerous devices to everyone is easily predictable. Ironically, it won't be the libertarian dream some imagine. Some 9 year old kids get access to a 3d printer (maybe dad or moms work device) to make a gun and get caught? Watch what happens. Kids are a lot faster at abusing tech than anyone.

There won't be less laws, that I predict.

Quote: rxwine

Some 9 year old kids get access to a 3d printer (maybe dad or moms work device) to make a gun and get caught? Watch what happens. Kids are a lot faster at abusing tech than anyone.

What if that same 9-year-old uses a 3d printer to make a long knife and kills someone with it? According to liberal logic, that's even more of an excuse to ban knives.

Quote: Beethoven9th

What if that same 9-year-old uses a 3d printer to make a long knife and kills someone with it? According to liberal logic, that's even more of an excuse to ban knives.

He can just go into the kitchen right now.

I should've made an exception to close range objects -- a brick to the head will kill you.

Quote: rxwine

Quote:

What if that same 9-year-old uses a 3d printer to make a long knife and kills someone with it? According to liberal logic, that's even more of an excuse to ban knives.

He can just go into the kitchen right now.

It's ironic because you're actually giving reasons why we should restrict access to knives.

Everything's dangerous, but not equally dangerous, and not equally useful.

Ouch, papercut.

Quote: rxwine

Everything's dangerous, but not equally dangerous, and not equally useful.

Ouch, papercut.

Considering guns have a low danger factor and high utility factor that should mean minimal new laws.