NRA torches Biden admin for plan to change rules for gun buyers, sellers

not gonna happen. What causes this level of rejection of the constitution? when I see this sort of what I would call rather extremism, I wonder what motivates it

 

How difficult do you think it be to change/repair 75 years of Democrat segregation, dependency, illiteracy, and substance abuse.. Think about it, who are all the Mexicans south American taking jobs from?

LBJ and his Democrats will keep the the negro segregated and they will have their 200 years of the negro votes.

 

I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion.

 

well you want to arrest "gang members" with no records for possessing guns

 

That's just D splatter, if they were actually serious about gun control the ghettos would logically be priority #1..

 

I think establishing he's contributing to a criminal enterprise is part of the what must be established.

 

Yes. An active participant.

 

have you figured out that such people have to first be arrested, then indicted then convicted of a felony?

 

True

1) waiting periods don't impact felons-they don't buy their guns at retail dealers
2) magazine limits and semi auto bans don't impact felons-they are already banned from owning them
3) registration doesn't impact felons-they won't register guns and the fifth amendment prevents them from being charged with failure to register guns
4) insurance or training requirements dont impact felons-again they don't buy guns legally

all the things democrats push are designed to reduce the rights of law abiding folks

 

It is amazing to me that the side in American politics that used to be the most articulate in explaining the economic costs of regulation in increasing price and consequently demand, can't connect the dots linking greater gun-control regulation to an increase in the price of guns and a commensurate drop in demand and availability of guns even among criminals.

 

well being an expert on this topic, such schemes will impact honest people far more than criminals and will far more likely destroy lawful organized uses of firearms such as target competition than impact criminals. And that is unconstitutional and a government that does such things is no longer legitimate

btw My attacks on democrat schemes really weren't about cost increases but rather crap that is designed to harass lawful ownership

 

If you are an active participant in a criminal organization like gangs, then you more than likely already have felonies or violent misdemeanors on your record. In which case such people are already barred from owning guns. What more do you want? That is Constitutional. IMO you could agree with Republicans about keeping such people behind bars longer. But then you wouldn't have an argument that supports pushing gun-control laws anymore. Personally, I'd rather change our Justice System to one of rehabilitation rather than just punishment.

And no, being a member of a criminal enterprise does not automatically make you a threat to society. Committing crimes is what makes you a threat to a society. Not simply being a member of some group. Do you not the know the difference? For instance, there are women that are officially in gangs that are a part of the gang simply because "her man" is a part of the gang. She may never commit a single crime in her life, yet she's still a member of that "criminal enterprise". I think you've started to realize this and is why you're starting to use words like "active participant". Because you realize that your initial broad stroke argument was in the wrong.

 

Ya, it worked so well with the war on drugs..
Can't say I've seen many poppy or coca fields in the U.S.

Contraband, demand and open boarders. Unless you can rid the world of an item it will always be available in this country..

 

Anything regulated will come at a higher cost -- and the more onerous the regulation and stringently enforced, the higher the cost. And except for Veblen goods, the higher the price, the lower the demand. Basic economics.

If the US had very stringent gun control laws, the guns that even teenage kids can afford to pack in America's inner cities, would cost a lot than many could afford. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons would be as expensive as they are in countries which outlaw them. Not something every two-bit drug gang could widely afford.

At the same time, regulation certainly spurs black markets which further increase criminal enterprise. This can be a serious issue in particular with consumer goods, including (especially due to addictive nature) drugs, which have constant repetitive demand per each such consumer.

 

I guess the conclusion is, criminals must work harder to earn the money to buy a weapon. Then again, I assume the good law abiding folks would have surrendered their firearms or can no longer afford one, so that would surely make things somewhat easier for criminals

This post promotes crime and criminals, while giving very little concern to the victims..

Bottom line is, criminals already pay greater prices for firearms. Just another disarm the law abiding and at best inconvenience the criminal..

Then there is this to consider.
https://worldpressinstitute.org/getting-rid-of-guns-in-america/

 

How do arms make any nation safer?

They make attacking and destroying that nation very dangerous- they provide the power of defense. Because there will always be forces willing to attack those who are defenseless, the capacity to defnd IS the strongest deterrent you can have.

The question comes down to who has control of that power, because in the wrong hands, it benefits the attacker.

We know that guns do not have malice or shoot themselves; so we know that the misuse of a weapon for aggression rather than defense depends totally on the person holding the weapon.

That would say first of all- that the existence of a weapon is not the source of risk; the person having control of it is. Gun in good hands is a tool that provides protection, in bad hands serves a as tool of aggression. That would also say that laws regarding the use or possession of weapons should be directed towards the person who would use them for aggression- not toward the person using them to defend against aggression. However, violent people do not respect laws- but unless they are suicidal, they do fear consequence. Thus it is the enforcement of laws with sufficient consequence that can change the behavior. Nobody goes up to a grizzly bear and punches it in the nose to prove they are macho... because the bear is going to respond with immediate and severe consequences and they know this will happen. That is a "deterrent".

For example- the death penalty, and the question of it being a deterrent. As it stands today, there are so many "ifs" to that penalty that it has no credibility. Even when actually applied, it is usually 20 years away- and will have cost the taxpayers millions.
What if it was 5 seconds away?

That's what happens when an armed citizen fights back; the real risk of the criminal losing his life is in his face- and the majority of them will run like hell.
The police can't be there to prevent crime. They arrive after the fact, and the clumsy process of investigation begins. A large percentage of major crimes are never solved. A large percentage of those solved impose far less penalty on the criminal than the criminal imposed on their victims. Everytime we water this process down, encumber it with nonsense- it becomes less effective. This is why we have people who commit murder while out on bail or parole for committing other murders. The chances of getting away with murder in America- are almost 40%- and getting away with lesser crimes much higher. That's why we have criminals on the street who have arrest records covering dozens of incidents. The police cannot be there when you are attacked; at that moment- your ability to defend yourself may determine if you live or die. As the people have allowed the radicals to paint the police as the evil enemy and weaken them, the need for you to be able to save your own life increases. This is why gun sales keep increasing; people see the will and ability of the government to protect the citizens steadily degrading.

You don't hear anything about gun supporters defending armed criminals. If anything, responsible gun owners want penalties for criminal use of guns to be much stronger than they are. It's the anti-gunners who go soft on criminals and threaten the rights of law-abiding people to defend themselves that weaken our system.

 

Whoever buys a gun for self-defense today may become an aggressor tomorrow.

You're forgetting suicides and accidents.

And you're forgetting that the guns civilians can buy today can kill dozens of innocent people before anyone with a gun can react.

If this were true, the criminals (who are all armed) wouldn't be killing each other.

And mass shooters wouldn't be so numerous in this country.

But you still haven't answered my question.

How do guns make the country safer?

Do you have a statistic that shows that the homicide rate or crime rate in general would be lower if there were more guns in circulation?

 

States' "war on drugs" is just as stupid and destructive as the Republican federal war.

 

Yes.

 

Thats easy. Those who would risk the penalty of committing a violent act would have no issue risking the penalty for breaking a gun law. I keep my possessions inside my locked home.

Did you know that burglars are taking safes even though they are bolted to the floor?

 

Getting the "bad guys" on a gun charge is one more way to lock them up.

 

I want another way to deal with criminals and criminal gangs.

Criminals are doing well in the Republican South, so maybe Republicans should agree with my tougher measures.

You think taking guns away from senile seniors, the mentally ill and criminal gangs is "gun control?" Egads.

Committing crimes is what criminal gangs are doing.

I said "active participant." You have to establish their activities benefitted the gang.

Oh, stop--you're breaking my heart. If she knowingly contributes to the gang, she's a menace to society,

Oh, please. You come off as a conclusion seeking premises. You see moves to protect the public from senile seniors as "gun control." Do you have a plan for dealing with senile seniors or not? More "Do nothing!" I suppose.

 

You're wrong about the person who buys a gun today becoming an aggressor tomorrow. People each have a kind of "tool box" in their minds that control what they can and cannot do, which is for the most part very consistent. This is why some people are career criminals, and other people are model citizens all their lives. People can change- but change of those fundamental factors is very rare. Change in the facade that get presented to you is easy, because it's an act- but who they are inside, what controls what they will allow themselves to do- is close to being carved in granite.

There's a mental state where people simply refuse to consider logical and reasonable concepts they don't like.

You acknowledge that criminals are all armed. That's a stretch, but mostly so. You also know that criminals don't respect laws, that is what makes them criminals. Since we already prohibit them from possesing guns, you know that regardless of laws- they will be armed. You also know that while law abiding people will generally respect laws, imposing control of them imposes no control at all over the criminals; and would actually disarm their victims for them. Why you don't understand what this means- I can't answer. I don't think the way you think. I hold people responsible for their own actions. I don't allow that to be blamed on others.

IF such an armed criminal broke into my home (home invasion) how he would die would depend on which gun was handiest at the moment. It might be with a 12 ga slug, of any of a variety of rifle or pistol calibers.
What would be true however- is that he would die, because (1) I am armed, and (2) I will use my ability to defend in a situation like that without hesitation. (3) He won't see a gun until he is under fire and it's too late. He's crossed the line when he broke in, and put himself in that position. He chose to take the risk. He loses- because I have the power to defend.

How will the fact I can do that help reduce homicides and crime?

That particular criminal:
Will have a zero recidivism rate in the future.
Will not impose the cost of an investigation on the taxpayers.
Will not pose a risk to police trying to arrest him.
Will not impose the cost of a trial on the taxpayers.
Will not have a chance of getting off on a technicality, or weak plea bargain.
Will not impose the cost of imprisoning him for whatever length his sentence may be on the taxpayers.

Other criminals.... Will realize that such acts may get them killed. No trial, no appeal, no delay- just dead, end of story.

They will know that if the person they target is armed- they too could be dead.
That will cause them to question the wisdom of taking the.chance.
That's what's called a "deterrent". The more likely it is to happen, the stronger the deterrent effect is. The more people are armed, the greater the odds they will be killed in the act of committing a crime.

You may find a better understnding in this story-

A cop pulls over an old lady for speeding...
..."Afternoon ma'am. May I see your license and registration?" The old lady wordlessly hands the officer these items. As the officer reaches for the papers, he takes observation of the old woman.

She wasn't just old, she was very old. Must have been in her mid 90's. The fact that she was speeding so comfortably was a surprise to the officer. While reading the license over, he notices that this old woman has a license to carry a concealed weapon.

For no other reason than curiosity, the officer asks if the woman is carrying now. She obliges and reaches for her purse and reveals a 22 caliber pistol.

This surprises and entertains the officer, for he couldn't have conceived that this tiny old woman would be packing heat. He felt that she may have another, so he asks her. She nods her head in agreement and reaches for the center compartment between the driver's seat and passenger's seat and reveals a snub nosed pistol.

The officer was amazed to think of this 90+ y.o. woman driving around with these guns. On another hunch he asks simply, "Are there any more?"

The old woman nods and says there is only one more, and removes a colt 45 from the glove compartment.

The officer's curiosity had been peaked but not satisfied. He asks the old woman, "Lady, what in the world are you so afraid of?"

She turns to him, looks him dead in the eyes and says, "Not a *******n thing."


https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/2ey9ak/a_cop_pulls_over_an_old_lady_for_speeding/

 

Used to be like that, well until the D's found stop and frisk a privacy issue..

 

Similarly, the side in American politics which used to be all about keeping government away from our rights now refuses to understand they can;t just ignore the Constitution, especially in terms of regulations which, intentionally, make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their rights.

The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in the militia, it does not allow for means-end tests, and you do not get to ignore it.