It's official. MoBoost want felons to buy guns at gun shows.
- Status
Still waiting for the data to support the assertion that felons purchasing guns from private sellers at gun shows is a major source of illegal gun traffic.
Without that data, you are yourself using faulty logic and going on perception. Passing laws that restrict private property rights in order to combat a perception is moronic and ineffectual.
Without that data, you are yourself using faulty logic and going on perception. Passing laws that restrict private property rights in order to combat a perception is moronic and ineffectual.
In a perfect world, that would, perhaps, be true. Because in a perfect world, everyone would, perhaps, exercise their rights responsibily. The reason that government has a "right" (some would say "duty" or "obligation" rather than "right") to infringe on people's "rights" is that people do not always exercise their rights responsibily. In this imperfect world of ours, the idea that rights imply a certain amount of responsibility in their exercise has been forgotten or ignored. Everyone is up in arms about their "rights", but no one seems to be talking about the responsibilities that go along with the exercise of any given right. Nancy Lanza was well within her 2nd Amendment rights to possess the guns her son, Adam, used to kill those 20 children and 7 adults in Newtown, but there is also no doubt that those guns were used irresponsibily. I believe in the 2nd Amendment as much as anyone else does, but I also believe in the responsible exercise of 2A rights. Unfortunately, not everyone with access to a gun believes the same, and this is why the government is involved in the whole mess.
I know it would provide the mechanism to make it possible.
Do you believe that for whatever reason Oklahoma is different or special and what has happened elsewhere can't happen here?
Do you believe history repeats itself?
Look back over the past, with its changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the future, too.
~Marcus Aurelius
History doesn't repeat itself; historians repeat themselves. With apologies to Marcus A.
You can certainly disagree with OkieBryan, when he came to Lawton and spoke about the Oklahoma Open Carry Association I know I didn't agree with all he said, but you cannot seriously believe the statement I quoted above from your post.
If you think he is off track now - just state that with your reasons but stop launching personal insulting attacks on him. My gosh we are supposed to be adults having a serious conversation about matters of consequence not kids insulting each other on the playground.
MM - the guns were used irresponsibly, illegally, and immorally by a mentally disturbed person but more importantly they may have been secured inadequately from that same person by the legal owner. I can't speak for that woman but if I had a child who had a drug problem, for instance, I sure as heck wouldn't supply them large amounts of cash nor keep my legally prescribed and properly possessed drugs within that child's reach. I think the analogy is appropriate.
let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate
1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.
The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s
What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)
Possible benefits for some at the expense of others, isn't that what's required for the "divide and conquer" tactic to work?
You heard it from me. It didn't fit your preconceived notions, so you chose to ignore it. It's very simple really, I'm disposing of my personal property in accordance with the law. I really don't care if you and your pal Dianne Feinstein like it or not, it's my property and I'll sell it in accordance with the law how I see fit. You're now telling me that getting government approval to sell my personal property isn't an infringement on my rights. I call ********. I'm now demanding that YOU tell ME exactly how requiring government approval to sell my personal property in accordance with the law IS NOT an infringement on my rights? You see, I'm not required to tell you or anyone else how my rights are infringed by a proposed law. It's your requirement as the pusher for this law to tell me how it DOESN'T! You've failed miserably to do that and gone on for 13 pages in your miserable failure. Therefore:
I now propose a law that okiebryan and his ilk be solely responsible for preventing felons from acquiring guns at gun shows. I further propose that okiebryan and his ilk be solely responsible for all associated costs in complying with this program. Further, I propose that okiebryan and his ilk do so without even slightly restricting my rights to sell my property in accordance with the law without interference from the government, okiebryan or any of his ilk. All in favor?
Here's a secret for you. Me exercising MY rights is not a dirty secret. YOU and your slimy proposal are all about appearances where my rights are concerned. Here's all the argument I'll ever need to refute your ridiculous proposal and your retarded argument:
So you see, this HAS been a slippery slope since before you were born. It's a highly logical and valid argument that you refuse to see because you have a genius idea in your brain that no one else gets. The reason no one else gets it is because it's a stupid, unworkable and ineffective idea designed to make some foolish people BELIEVE that something has been done to protect people or rights. It is a LIE!As a complete lie, you cannot invent any argument, support it with any statistic form any source, pretend anymore in any way that your idea is anything but an infringement on MY rights! I will not tolerate it!
You should know from this point forward that you do not speak for anyone but yourself. You and you alone want this. SO if you intend to continue forward with this foolishness, you'd better make absolutely sure you don't take it upon yourself to speak for anyone but yourself. If you try to pretend you represent the gun community, I can assure you that you'll wind up with a LOT of egg on your face. Capiche?
- Status
Similar threads
