5 Facts Proving ‘They Are Coming For Your Guns’ Is Not A Conspiracy Theory

[hitchicken]

If I my ...



If society were to prosecute and not put up with people using firearms in the commission of a crime or to kill or maim someone in the first place, then we would not be having this kind of problem. But there is no consistency in the application and enforcement of current law. But low and behold, we have a complicit media that will bleed the airwaves dry with the constant pounding of the latest use, while never mentioning the inherently already illegal usage of the firearm, that firearms are bad and need to be banned. And here you are, thinking and spewing the same BS propaganda as thoughtful and reasoned questions. Are you so insecure with yourself, so fearful of others, lack any ability to fend for yourself, that you feel the need to take away from others their ability? Others that have no problem defending themselves or others in any manner they choose, as well as their defense with any class of firearm?

I really am trying hard to be nice about this.

 

[hitchicken]

Gently? Okay.

Easy and quick, if you are "pro-2nd amendment", how can you be okay with any manner of infringement on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms? Each and every one of us has the innate right to protect ourselves, our families, our property, and others from devious intent (by individuals, groups, or governments) and any interference from the government, as to the type of arm, how to store an arm, or how to acquire an arm, is anti-2nd amendment.

No where, never did I even imply any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Nor have I pointed to any firearm type. Check my threads and tell me where I have done so. I'm simply saying leaving your AK-47 on the hood of your pickup truck to go in and have a beer at your favorite bar on Saturday night might be less than prudent if the gun is later picked up by a stranger and used to mow down some school kids. Should being imprudent carry any consequence? I dunno.

 

[Ken King]

No where, never did I even imply any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Nor have I pointed to any firearm type. Check my threads and tell me where I have done so. I'm simply saying leaving your AK-47 on the hood of your pickup truck to go in and have a beer at your favorite bar on Saturday night might be less than prudent if the gun is later picked up by a stranger and used to mow down some school kids. Should being imprudent carry any consequence? I dunno.

Background checks are an infringement because it points out those that you and the government seek to prevent from keeping and bearing arms.
Requiring weapons that some see as being needed to store is another infringement.
And on top of that you want those that (guessing you and the government get to decide, huh) are "determined" to be negligent or at fault because another took and used the arm to face consequences is repugnant on many levels.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Now, you are being less than truthful. "And here you are, thinking and spewing the same BS propaganda as thoughtful and reasoned questions." I have never suggested, in any way shape or form, that "firearms are bad and need to be banned" in my posts and threads. You made that up. You know what that makes you, right? "Are you so insecure with yourself, so fearful of others, lack any ability to fend for yourself, that you feel the need to take away from others their ability?" Where, in any of my threads and posts did I say take away anything from anybody. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see fewer restrictions on guns (short of gnd to air heat seeking missiles.). Show me and others where I did any of your accusations. You can't because you are not being honest.

You hide behind the mask of tyranny, nonchalantly, trying innocently, asking and fronting innocuous sounding questions and platitudes. If you were such as you say, these questions wouldn't even be entertained within your own thoughts, let alone to be asked in a forum.

 

[hitchicken]

If I may ...



You hide behind the mask of tyranny, nonchalantly, trying innocently, asking and fronting innocuous sounding questions and platitudes. If you were such as you say, these questions wouldn't even be entertained within your own thoughts, let alone to be asked in a forum.

True enough (the 2nd part of your statement). The question of sloppy gun security does exist in my own mind. I posted on the thread to ask what others on the forum thought. That's all. Don't try to make this any more than that.

 

[black dog]

Gunpowder can easily be made by other foreign countries. Completed cheap bullets can be smuggled into the USA. You don't have to make gunpowder, bullets or guns for the black market. Foreign entities will do that for you. Everything on the black market is not homemade, you know.

It doesn't have to be Black market at all, folks that reload and cast bullets easily can cast any bullet needed and manufacturing black powder is not that difficult at all.

 

[hitchicken]

Background checks are an infringement because it points out those that you and the government seek to prevent from keeping and bearing arms.
Requiring weapons that some see as being needed to store is another infringement.
And on top of that you want those that (guessing you and the government get to decide, huh) are "determined" to be negligent or at fault because another took and used the arm to face consequences is repugnant on many levels.

Yeah, giving the govt any information can be hazardous. Taking away guns? Gad, I hope not. But they could. That's true with any info they choose to use and abuse. Even birth certificates.
I never even suggested that some requirement be set for storing any guns. There shouldn't be. Who would enforce it? I just said that some consequence for 'sloppy' security of some weapons might be a possibility in the most heinous of crimes, but not by law. An idea is to let the individual court cases decide on a individual basis during trial.

And please stop using the phrase "...you and the government" I'm not the govt.

 

[Ken King]

Yeah, giving the govt any information can be hazardous. Taking away guns? Gad, I hope not. But they could. That's true with any info they choose to use and abuse. Even birth certificates.
I never even suggested that some requirement be set for storing any guns. There shouldn't be. Who would enforce it? I just said that some consequence for 'sloppy' security of some weapons might be a possibility in the most heinous of crimes, but not by law. An idea is to let the individual court cases decide on a individual basis during trial.

And please stop using the phrase "...you and the government" I'm not the govt.

You're not. I am. I thought we all are. It is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, right?

Only those that use an arm to unlawfully harm others should be held in consequence. It is of no concern as to how they acquired the arm (legally, illegally, found it, whatever).

 

[black dog]

True enough (the 2nd part of your statement). The question of sloppy gun security does exist in my own mind. I posted on the thread to ask what others on the forum thought. That's all. Don't try to make this any more than that.

Let's ponder this if you do live in Maryland, Their is 80+ firearms that have been banned from transferring into Maryland.
How ironic it is that so many of these are semi autos that you can't buy any longer, but if this firearm was offered as a transferable machinegun, you can buy it and own it in Maryland.. does that truly make sense?

Does it make since that every handgun transfer since 1968-69 done at a FFL is in a database in Pikesville, State Police Headquarters?

My opinions,
No databases kept.
Constitutional Carry Nationwide, everywhere a LEO can carry, so should a citizen be able too.
I should be able to buy and transfer any firearm or suppressor in any state without any infringement whatever.

 

[hitchicken]

Only those that use an arm to unlawfully harm others should be held in consequence. It is of no concern as to how they acquired the arm (legally, illegally, found it, whatever).

Wow! Okay. Thanks for you input, KK. I appreciate your opinion.

 

[hitchicken]

Let's ponder this if you do live in Maryland, Their is 80+ firearms that have been banned from transferring into Maryland.
How ironic it is that so many of these are semi autos that you can't buy any longer, but if this firearm was offered as a transferable machinegun, you can buy it and own it in Maryland.. does that truly make sense?

Does it make since that every handgun transfer since 1968-69 done at a FFL is in a database in Pikesville, State Police Headquarters?

My opinions,
No databases kept.
Constitutional Carry Nationwide, everywhere a LEO can carry, so should a citizen be able too.
I should be able to buy and transfer any firearm or suppressor in any state without any infringement whatever.

I agree with your post entirely. The govt makes stupid and conflicting laws and regs regarding guns. Buy and transfer w/o infringement? Of course. I would just like to see a background check on the person you're giving your gun to. That's all.

 

[Ken King]

I agree with your post entirely. The govt makes stupid and conflicting laws and regs regarding guns. Buy and transfer w/o infringement? Of course. I would just like to see a background check on the person you're giving your gun to. That's all.

Why? For what reason other than to infringe upon their right to keep and bear.

 

[hitchicken]

Why? For what reason other than to infringe upon their right to keep and bear.

Okay. A hypothetical.

You have a close (friend, nephew, niece, relative, whatever) and he (she) wants to buy one of your semi-auto guns. He (she) is a good kid. He (she) has paid their debt to society for that unforeseen murder and gotten out of prison and psychology ward. They still use heroine & crystal, but they've promised they'll go to rehab and get off it soon. He (she) still complains about hearing voices telling him (her) what to do. While you might be concerned with his (her) rants about her old boss, her old school or the judge who 'sent him (her) up' and making death threats against them, you decide to sell (or give them) the gun anyway. I'll let you finish the story. A background would have stopped your superior judgement.

 

[black dog]

Okay. A hypothetical.

You have a close (friend, nephew, niece, relative, whatever) and he (she) wants to buy one of your semi-auto guns. He (she) is a good kid. He (she) has paid their debt to society for that unforeseen murder and gotten out of prison and psychology ward. They still use heroine & crystal, but they've promised they'll go to rehab and get off it soon. He (she) still complains about hearing voices telling him (her) what to do. While you might be concerned with his (her) rants about her old boss, her old school or the judge who 'sent him (her) up' and making death threats against them, you decide to sell (or give them) the gun anyway. I'll let you finish the story. A background would have stopped your superior judgement.

Well to start with they would be a convicted felon for starters and already with you having knowledge of that fact and facts it's already unlawful for you to do a private transfer.

 

[hitchicken]

Well to start with they would be a convicted felon for starters and already with you having knowledge of that fact and facts it's already unlawful for you to do a private transfer.

While your point is well taken, I suspect KK would not let that stop him. I hope he will respond. He has already indicated it doesn't matter where the criminal got the gun from.

How bout it, KK? Would the law preventing private transfer to a convicted felon be an infringement of rights in your mind?

Would you just ignore the law in your transfer? If the recipient of your gun mass murdered, how would you feel? Would you feel any remorse or responsibility? Would you go out and buy another gun to replace the one the police are keeping as evidence? Would you send condolences to the victims?

Yeah, sure. That might be enough... as long as YOUR rights haven't been infringed,

 

[black dog]

While your point is well taken, I suspect KK would not let that stop him. I hope he will respond. He has already indicated it doesn't matter where the criminal got the gun from.

How bout it, KK? Would the law preventing private transfer to a convicted felon be an infringement of rights in your mind?

Well yes and no.
I personally feel that once you have finished doing the time, you shall be granted your full rights as a citizen of the USA.
My opinion is, if you are not incarcerated you shall have full rights as a citizen.
If someone is not safe to own a firearm why are we allowing them to roam free.

 

[hitchicken]

Well yes and no.
I personally feel that once you have finished doing the time, you shall be granted your full rights as a citizen of the USA.
My opinion is, if you are not incarcerated you shall have full rights as a citizen.
If someone is not safe to own a firearm why are we allowing them to roam free.

Good point. Thanks for your o-pine. What about the other questionable behaviors like drug use, hearing voices, making public threats, violent misdemeanors, spousal abuse, extreme left-wing progressive political viewpoints (just kidding), illegal immigrant status... at what point can we ignore background checks? Is "I'm no longer behind bars" good enough?

 

[black dog]

Good point. Thanks for your o-pine. What about the other questionable behaviors like drug use, hearing voices, making public threats, violent misdemeanors, spousal abuse, extreme left-wing progressive political viewpoints (just kidding), illegal immigrant status... at what point can we ignore background checks? Is "I'm no longer behind bars" good enough?

We can eliminate background checks tonight at 12:00pm as far as I'm concerned.
And yes, if one has full filled their time, all rights are restored. I don't care what crime was committed. If they are safe enough to be set free, they get all rights restored.
If they are mentally ill and a threat to society they need to be locked away, like we used to do, until they are no longer a threat or death happens.
And as far as non citizens buying firearms here, nope not a chance.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Okay. A hypothetical.

You have a close (friend, nephew, niece, relative, whatever) and he (she) wants to buy one of your semi-auto guns. He (she) is a good kid. He (she) has paid their debt to society for that unforeseen murder and gotten out of prison and psychology ward. They still use heroine & crystal, but they've promised they'll go to rehab and get off it soon. He (she) still complains about hearing voices telling him (her) what to do. While you might be concerned with his (her) rants about her old boss, her old school or the judge who 'sent him (her) up' and making death threats against them, you decide to sell (or give them) the gun anyway. I'll let you finish the story. A background would have stopped your superior judgement.

WTF is this idiocy? No respectable and responsible firearm owner would even consider selling to a wack job, even if family.

Good point. Thanks for your o-pine. What about the other questionable behaviors like drug use, hearing voices, making public threats, violent misdemeanors, spousal abuse, extreme left-wing progressive political viewpoints (just kidding), illegal immigrant status... at what point can we ignore background checks? Is "I'm no longer behind bars" good enough?

While your point is well taken, I suspect KK would not let that stop him. I hope he will respond. He has already indicated it doesn't matter where the criminal got the gun from. How bout it, KK? Would the law preventing private transfer to a convicted felon be an infringement of rights in your mind? Would you just ignore the law in your transfer? If the recipient of your gun mass murdered, how would you feel? Would you feel any remorse or responsibility? Would you go out and buy another gun to replace the one the police are keeping as evidence? Would you send condolences to the victims? Yeah, sure. That might be enough... as long as YOUR rights haven't been infringed,

FFS. You do realize, the extreme vast majority of firearm owners have a very keen sense of who they are dealing with when/if they're selling a personal firearm to, don't you? Just like a retail firearm store has the right and responsibility to not sell to someone suspicious, personal responsible firearm owners are exactly the same way. Why the f*ck would a seller go and repurchase a firearm that was previously sold and used in a crime that is now locked up in evidence? Where do you come up with this sh*t? These are the most vacuous hypothetical scenarios ever conjured.

Why don't you f*ck off with your innocent sounding questions and inquisitive replies? You are not pro 2nd amendment. No amount of "yes I am and here's why" will change that. Please, do us all a favor and exercise your right NOT to exercise your 2nd amendment right. Leave the important matters to the adults capable of dealing with such issues. This Nation will be a better place for it.

 

[black dog]

If I may ...



WTF is this idiocy? No respectable and responsible firearm owner would even consider selling to a wack job, even if family.





FFS. You do realize, the extreme vast majority of firearm owners have a very keen sense of who they are dealing with when/if they're selling a personal firearm to, don't you? Just like a retail firearm store has the right and responsibility to not sell to someone suspicious, personal responsible firearm owners are exactly the same way. Why the f*ck would a seller go and repurchase a firearm that was previously sold and used in a crime that is now locked up in evidence? Where do you come up with this sh*t? These are the most vacuous hypothetical scenarios ever conjured.

Why don't you f*ck off with your innocent sounding questions and inquisitive replies? You are not pro 2nd amendment. No amount of "yes I am and here's why" will change that. Please, do us all a favor and exercise your right NOT to exercise your 2nd amendment right. Leave the important matters to the adults capable of dealing with such issues. This Nation will be a better place for it.