kelpdiver 2 #126 January 20, 2011 Quote "Illegal sources" is not the same thing as "the street." "The street" implies some shady character standing next to a drug dealer and a hooker on the corner, when, in fact, most of these illegal gun sales are taking place via "gun shows." making up facts, again, Quade? Gun shows sales aren't illegal, and it's already established how small a player they are in this regard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #127 January 20, 2011 QuoteGun shows sales aren't illegal, and it's already established how small a player they are in this regard. You're right. Gun shows aren't illegal. That said, it certainly appears that it's trivial to make an illegal gun purchase at one. http://www.gunshowundercover.org/quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #128 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteGun shows sales aren't illegal, and it's already established how small a player they are in this regard. You're right. Gun shows aren't illegal. That said, it certainly appears that it's trivial to make an illegal gun purchase at one. http://www.gunshowundercover.org/ Quote The vast majority of people who either visit or sell guns at gun shows are law-abiding citizens and dealers. However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms , and Explosives (ATF) reports that 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows. Even if we take your source at face value, your statement rings false. 30% of a subset of gun crimes hardly translates to your "most" lie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #129 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotecriminals already have guns. it is easier to get an illegal gun on the street than it is for me to walk into walmart and pick one up legally. Is it? Do you know that for a fact? Have you actually tried to buy a gun illegally on the street? Justice Dept. studies show that 79% of criminals get their guns from illegal sources. Are you going to tell us next that it's difficult for illegal drug users to buy dope on the street? "Illegal sources" is not the same thing as "the street." "The street" implies some shady character standing next to a drug dealer and a hooker on the corner, when in fact, most of these illegal gun sales are taking place via "gun shows." Now, do you want to talk about the "gun show" loopholes? http://www.gunshowundercover.org/ Person to person sales aren't illegal, sorry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #130 January 20, 2011 OMG! It's raining guns!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #131 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotecriminals already have guns. it is easier to get an illegal gun on the street than it is for me to walk into walmart and pick one up legally. Is it? Do you know that for a fact? Have you actually tried to buy a gun illegally on the street? Justice Dept. studies show that 79% of criminals get their guns from illegal sources. Are you going to tell us next that it's difficult for illegal drug users to buy dope on the street? "Illegal sources" is not the same thing as "the street." "The street" implies some shady character standing next to a drug dealer and a hooker on the corner, when in fact, most of these illegal gun sales are taking place via "gun shows." Now, do you want to talk about the "gun show" loopholes? http://www.gunshowundercover.org/ I'll bother you for a source on your statement of fact. I've been to many gun shows. I've bought many firearms. I have seen no evidence to support your declaration that illegal sales are going on there. Please explain how you know that most illegal sales are going on there.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #132 January 20, 2011 QuotePerson to person sales aren't illegal, sorry. They are if they violate laws regarding them. Just because a person wants to sell a gun and another person wants to buy doesn't mean it's legal for the transaction to take place if the seller has a reasonable suspicion the purchaser doesn't meet the background check qualifications. It's still illegal to sell a gun to a felon whether it's a private sale or not.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #133 January 20, 2011 you forgot one very important word "knowingly" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #134 January 20, 2011 >What about traffic violations, which pose a far greater threat to public safety than >a bunch of people sitting around smoking dope & enjoying music together. Sure. Include misdemeanor traffic crimes. >Gotta wonder what it is about Democrats that makes it impossible for them to >simply live their lives in peace and leave the rest of us alone. The same thing that makes Republicans want to regulate what happens in your bedroom (and in your church.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #135 January 20, 2011 Quoteyou forgot one very important word "knowingly" Your use of the word sounds an awful lot like "industrial haze."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #136 January 20, 2011 I'm still interested in a citation that says most criminals are getting their weapons illegally at gun shows, please.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doughboyshred 0 #137 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuote Although, if you really look at it with an open mind the republicans have done much more to erode personal freedoms and liberty over the last 20 years than have the democrats. Can you say patriot act? # Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66) # Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1) The Bush Administration lead the charge, but you don't see a lot of protest here. Only Feingold voted no in the Senate. And you only have to look up Reno/Clinton (start with Carnivore) to doubt that it would have been much different with a Gore Administration. Very true, and Obumma hasn't done shit to reverse the trend. One of the reasons that I laugh when conservitards get all worked up about how liberal he is. What a joke. He is Bush light, or should I say dark? Bush V.2 beholden to the same power elite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #139 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteyou forgot one very important word "knowingly" Your use of the word sounds an awful lot like "industrial haze." that's your entire rebuttal now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #140 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteyou forgot one very important word "knowingly" Your use of the word sounds an awful lot like "industrial haze." that's your entire rebuttal now? Are you saying guns are never illegally sold at gun shows with a wink and a nod?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #141 January 20, 2011 Quotea Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that only 0.8% of prison inmates reported acquiring firearms used in their crimes "At a gun show," with repeat offenders less likely than first-time offenders to report acquiring firearms from a retail source, gun show or flea market. This 2001 study examined data from a 1997 Department of Justice survey of more than 18,000 federal and state prison inmates in 1,409 State prisons and 127 Federal prisons.[17][18] The remaining 99.2% of inmates reported obtaining firearms from other sources, including "From a friend/family member" (36.8%), "Off the street/from a drug dealer" (20.9%), "From a fence/black market source" (9.6%), "From a pawnshop," "From a flea market," "From the victim," or "In a burglary." 9% of inmates replied "Don't Know/Other" to the question of where they acquired a firearm and 4.4% refused to answer.[18] The Department of Justice did not attempt to verify the firearms reported in the survey or trace them to determine their chain of possession from original retail sale to the time they were transferred to the inmates surveyed (in cases where inmates were not the original retail purchaser).[19] And let's not forget that your "connected with gun shows" numbers include guns that were sold to a legal consumer and then stolen, or resold later to an individual who used it illegally. Can't really blame gun shows for that, can you? (unless you're Bloomberg or the ATF anyway) edit to add: QuoteGun control advocates allege gun shows are a major source of guns used in crimes despite the fact that multiple government studies prove they are not. A Bureau of Justice Statistics report indicates that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gun shows.1 This study was based on interviews with 18,000 prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the federal government. It is also entirely consistent with previous federal studies, such as another BJS study which found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their guns from gun shows. 2 Similarly, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study reported less than 2% of criminals' guns came from gun shows.3 1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Firearms Use by Offenders," Nov. 2001. 2. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-1998," June 2000. 3. National Institute of Justice, "Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities," Dec. 1997. Quote A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample, “None of the [attackers’] rifles, shotguns, or handguns … were obtained from gun shows or related activities.” Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, “[T]he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a gun. … I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold.”4witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #142 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteyou forgot one very important word "knowingly" Your use of the word sounds an awful lot like "industrial haze." that's your entire rebuttal now? Are you saying guns are never illegally sold at gun shows with a wink and a nod? Are you no longer maintaining your ridiculous claim that most illegally obtained guns come from gun shows? Kennedy pretty conclusively killed that farce. In CA (and many states), private transfers are not permitted, so I already know that the "most" was false on first inspection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #143 January 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteyou forgot one very important word "knowingly" Your use of the word sounds an awful lot like "industrial haze." that's your entire rebuttal now? Are you saying guns are never illegally sold at gun shows with a wink and a nod? I've asked twice for you to document your claim that most criminals get their firearms at gunshows illegally. You have missed my requests. Now, you are hanging onto a slender thread by claiming that surely it must have happened before? I quit this thread. We've left the realm of reasonable debate. Johnson, out.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thrillstalker 0 #144 January 21, 2011 Quoteyou forgot one very important word "knowingly" there is pretty much no way of proving foreknowledge, so MOST of these are legal. following you own reasoning you prove yourself wrong quade."Never grow a wishbone, where your backbone ought to be." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #145 January 21, 2011 Quote Quote Quote "they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." suggests that the individual is ultimately responsible for and has authority over himself. Well... yeah, partly. That's worded closer to personal responsibility. Its... Natural Rights. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men The Government does not exist to tell you what to do or how to live, or to create new regulations... it exists, ONLY, to protect your rights, that come from God. Justice - The Law... is fully based on, God's Law... Natural Law. If your rights come from God... if your life comes from God. Than who owns your body after God? You. That... is a Founding Principle. So... under a Federalist system. Where the Federal government is created by the States. Not a National Government. (We are nearly functioning as a National Government) National Government - Top Down - Full Ability to Regulate Anything Articles of Confederation - A mess - too weak - No central power. Federal Government - Only 16 powers... weak central control.... INTENTIONAL WEAK CENTRAL CONTROL There are only 16 powers enumerated to the Federal Government. All other powers, fall to the States: as long as they do not interfere with Federal Law under those 16 powers, nor violate, Gods Law. That is why you can have universal healthcare in Massachusetts... Go For It! State universal health care - Legal Federal universal health care - Illegal. Federal Drug Laws... Illegal!!!!!!! State Drug Laws.... Legal. 68% of Alaska consists of "Dry Counties". Localities that have passed laws against alcohol (learned from Alaska State Troopers, not Sarah Palin. ) The idea is... that you can vote with your feet. If a local community (where the Founders wanted Power to reside, with the people, locally) wants to ban alcohol... they can. If you want to drink. MOVE! Vote with your feet. It is the idea that if one state is being run by Idiots, (California) you can leave. If you are a business owner, and the state you are in increases taxes 70%, you can leave. But if the Federal government raises business taxes 70%... YOU... ARE... SCREWED! It is the fear of central power. Power corrupts... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. NO... nowhere in the constitution, does it specifically say that you have the right to drink alcohol. However, the Federal government can not ban it... without Amending the constitution, as they did. However, if you own your body... than you can do anything with it or put anything in it you please. And in the process of repealing an Amendment... it is crossed out, never erased, to remind us of the scars of the past. The Founders knew the American people were good people at heart, and that they would make mistakes, but they would eventually get it right. With the amendment process things can be changed, legally, if they are needed to be changed as times change. THEY DID NOT... want the constitution to be reinterpreted, nor develop precedents off those reinterpretations. Using the commerce clause for healthcare, is manipulation of the constitution. The commerce clause exists so the Federal Government can protect states, under the law, in dealing with each other. During the days of the Articles of Confederation... states WERE cheating other states. It was a mess! To regulate commerce between states...means to uphold the law. Regulate, to our Founders... meant, to maintain regularity... under the law... to maintain the law. The government exists to protect God given rights. Justice, under the law... is an unalienable rights. And if anyone disagrees with the definition of, Regulate... as I stated. Please, tell me what the second definition of Happiness is, as i spoke about previously. Nancy Pelosi.... is a liar. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3980210;search_string=pursuit%20of%20happiness;#3980210 excellent post Grazi I like how Billvon and Quade completely ignored my post... Cause the thing is... with what I said, the majority of issues in this thread.. Do, Not, Matter. Because its for states to decide. Not the Federal Government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #146 January 22, 2011 Quote Because its for states to decide. Not the Federal Government. But that doesn't fit for them.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #147 January 22, 2011 Democrats try and keep us from owning guns and doing things they perceive to harm the environment... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "They perceive." Very well said. Owning a gun causes harm to nobody. (Misusing a gun does cause harm, but Republicans do not support this, so this response is irrelevant.) Republicans try to keep us from doing things that are personal decisions... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Such as allowing customers to smoke in a restaurant? Or cooking food using trans fat? Or riding a bike without a helmet? Or driving alone in the left highway lane without wearing a seatbelt? Or selling "Happy Meals" with a small toy inside? Remind me again which Republicans are trying to make such things illegal. If you can think of any. ...Republicans think that if some guy gets high on X and fucks their boyfriend that society will collapse, so they try and ban drugs and fight the gay lifestlye... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ There are valid reasons to keep illegal drugs illegal. Having said that, I'll agree that small-time violations should be handled in a common-sense manner. (This would not include arrest & property confiscation.) As for the two guys, if they wanna have queer sex it's their business as long as they don't shove it in my face and demand I give approval to their favorite sin. (I've done immoral things too, but I don't shout it from the rooftops or volunteer such information during a job interview.) Why do I have to know about it? Keep my nose out of your bedroom. It's all bullshit, and is really nothing more than trying to push their personal opinions on others... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Telling someone what you think is not "pushing" anything. Demanding a law to force them to conform with your preference is. If you tell me you use an AAD and suggest I do the same, fine. If you won't allow me to jump at your DZ because I don't have one, you are pushing your beliefs on me. ...Although, if you really look at it with an open mind the republicans have done much more to erode personal freedoms and liberty over the last 20 years than have the democrats... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pure fiction. If you look at the list of things we were free to do 30 years ago, but are now illegal, you'll see the fingerprints of Democrats all over the place. Yes, some of these laws were passed with the help of Republican votes, but it was Democrats who pushed such legislation in the first place. If you've ever been hassled by police for doing something that used to be okay, thank a Democrat. Can you say patriot act?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Okay okay. If you make overseas phone calls to know terrorist sympathizers your calls might be monitored. And depending on who you are your library records might be looked at. I'm not very comfortable with some of the provisions of this legislation, but tell me: If Bush had done nothing would you be praising him for his restraint? If we had been hit again the left would have blamed Bush for failing to "do something" to prevent it. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #148 February 1, 2011 I have always loved how liberals take the most liberal stance on everything *except* guns. Wanna get high? Cool. Wanna own a machine gun? Hell no! How do they justify the flip on position? Guns cause harm??? Well drug use does not exactly help society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #149 February 1, 2011 Except for liberals who realize the hypocracy & adjust their beliefs accordingly. Look up "pro-gun liberals." Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #150 February 1, 2011 QuoteExcept for liberals who realize the hypocracy & adjust their beliefs accordingly. Look up "pro-gun liberals." True... I read a piece by a guy that I thought was great and this is what made me start really thinking about this issue. Here that article is http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment And it is just a damn good piece. QuoteNo. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights. If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people." First Amendment: ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble Second Amendment: 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. Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... Ninth Amendment: ...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Tenth Amendment: ...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. QuoteWe believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government. And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment. So I don't get it.... Most liberals (yes, not all) think all but the 2nd should be allowed to the people. QuoteNo. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties. All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights. But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth. We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment. But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions. Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise. QuoteLiberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment. And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals. QuoteIn no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night. It is the right of revolution. QuoteThe Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either. We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters. And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right. That may be the very best Pro 2nd article I have ever read. But you must agree that MOST cases, liberals only agree to liberal interpretations of the every right but the 2nd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
