11, including child, 3, shot in Chicago park

Distracted1 said:
As far as I am concerned you can make love to your gun if you wish. Just make sure you can produce it yearly for registration- or have documentation that it was reported stolen within 48 hrs. of being stolen.

You may not sell it, loan it out, give it away, or lose it. It should be a crime if it is ever found in the possession of someone else
Click to expand...

I see you didn't answer a single question I asked. Why is that?

All you did was create a strawman. Maybe you should try again and answer my questions...
 
thaiboxerken said:
Have you ever noticed that those forms, as well as other forms of speech, have restrictions?
Click to expand...

Yes, and is this forum, as well as others, owned by the government? No? Didn't think so. I see where your twisted logic is going with this though, and I've never, not once, argued that there should be no restrictions. Ever. Nice try though Thai.
 
Distracted1 said:
It would seem that you are willing to extrapolate meanings beyond what is specifically said in the text, I agree with you there.

However, once we digress from a specific, literal, interpretation of each individual word of the document ( where do I get my Keep, and the Bear arms that are promised me? what if there aren't enough bear arms? ) we begin discussing our opinions about what we think the text means (or should mean). You may argue that gun registration is unconstitutional based upon your interpretation of the constitution- but yours are not the only eyes reading it, nor is yours the only intellect pondering its' meaning.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the word salad, that didn't even come close to replying to my post. Nice job....
 
ponderingturtle said:
That's why you buy the guns first then sell them to some dude on the street in perfectly legal transaction.

You want to curb the flow of guns into the illegal market, registration, but that is not ever going to happen.
Click to expand...

Tracing back guns to their buyers who sold them to criminals is a waste of time clearly, we just need to accept that heavily armed criminals are here to stay, to do otherwise would be unamerican.
Click to expand...

The serial number of guns is recorded during every legal purchase from a dealer, so if a gun is recovered related to a crime, the police can always go and see who originally bought it and where they bought it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

They are usually stolen, not purchased legally.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Why does Congress and the media constantly focus on AR-15 rifles and "assault weapons", when they are almost never used in crimes?

I don't know.
Click to expand...

I do ! I do ! It is easy to make laws or rethoric for it, showing your voting critter you are doing "something" to protect the children, while at the same time knowing it will not "hurt" (read : change anything) for too many of your constituent.

It is a bit as if they were doing a anti-bengal-tiger law forbidding the rising, and usage of bengal tiger in gang war with plenty of "think of the children". It might hurt 1 or 2 people and a few zoo, but mostly it is posturage.
 
Garrette said:
My main issue is with the part I highlighted. According to the news report I heard this morning (CNN, with more than just a headline, though granted not incredibly in-depth), this was not about shooting someone considered a threat; it was part of gang activity, looking for someone to shoot, not hold up and then use the minimal force necessary.

Not that it undermines your broader point (it may, but I'm not getting into that just yet), but it doesn't apply to this event.
Click to expand...

That was not related to this shooting, but more related to gang of use firearms is not so widespread here.
 
Who cares about your constitution ? Your own governement certainly do not.
1) Defining people as "only citizen" to avoid applying constitutional protection to foreigner. Like allowing torture.
2) spying on your own folk
3) free speech zone
4) border zone being constitution-less apparentely for a very large definition of border

Face it, the constitution has become a relatively elastic document , to ingore when convenient. So that hold up on your second amendement ? Quaint.
 
triforcharity said:
Perhaps you'll point out where driving a car is a right enumerated in the US Constitution. I've yet to find it. Why you ask? Because you've got no right under the US Constitution to a vehicle.


In what context? By employers? Again, there's no right to employment in the constitution. And even so, the illegal search provision in the US Constitution doesn't apply to anyone else, but officials of a government.
Click to expand...

Interresting. So new tech cannot be covered by teh constitution.

So that means the governement can actually copy your email and all your electronic stuff.

Not covered by the constitution baby !


Or alternatively your "not covered by" for new tech is stupid.
 
Aepervius said:
Coming back from a late family gathering, last walk in the park ? There are plenty of valid reason why a small kid or even a baby would be out at that time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, people always take a casual walk in the park after 10pm in Back of the Yards... it's not like there's 7 or 8 major street gangs active in the area and there's shooting every night.

Oh, wait... :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Interresting. So new tech cannot be covered by teh constitution.

So that means the governement can actually copy your email and all your electronic stuff.

Not covered by the constitution baby !


Or alternatively your "not covered by" for new tech is stupid.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that. I think you misread my post. Go back and try again sir! Lol! (not mocking you, just finding it quite humorous.)
 
triforcharity said:
Hope this helps. Now, there's that pesky word militia you're referring to. You'll need to find out what they meant when they referred to a militia.
Click to expand...


You have to consider the context in which the constitution was written. In most countries, the law restricted who could and couldn't "bear arms" (which usually meant who could and couldn't serve in the army) and this had caused real problems at many times. Those countries could not maintain a "well regulated militia" because the make-up of the militia was skewed by repressive laws that, for example, prohibited Catholics from serving.

It's possible (although obviously the USSC hasn't interpreted it that way) that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to avoid such a situation and ensure the armed forces that protected the USA were representative of "the people".
 
triforcharity said:
Why is it that we constantly see people who want gun control draconian type laws, not blame the criminals? Yeah, it's Florida and Virginia's fault that NYC has crime....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yea you make it sound like someone selling guns to criminals is in any way responsible that the criminals bought guns.
 
WildCat said:
There's that pesky 2nd Amendment... which is despised as much as the 1st Amendment by the same people.
Click to expand...

Yea which is about arms, and the total bs about making background checks excessive on explosives and like. Total bs all in the name of suppressing the kind of violent political violence our founders so believed in and used.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The serial number of guns is recorded during every legal purchase from a dealer, so if a gun is recovered related to a crime, the police can always go and see who originally bought it and where they bought it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

They are usually stolen, not purchased legally.
Click to expand...

No they are most frequently given to the person by a family membet or some such. Only a minority are stolen.
 
Reheat said:
I see you didn't answer a single question I asked. Why is that?

All you did was create a strawman. Maybe you should try again and answer my questions...
Click to expand...
I don't see a strawman in my response, but acknowledge I did not give specific answers to your questions. I'll try again.

*"Can I keep it inside or outside of a safe just as I can either keep my car in my garage or not?"
Keep it wherever you wish, Be ready to be charged with a crime like "negligent homicide" if someone picks it up and shoots someone with it- it is your duty as a responsible gun owner to actually be responsible.

*"Since I am not required to register an automobile if I only operate on my own property would the same apply to a gun?
You are, however ,required to transfer the title of an automobile regardless of whether or not you intend to register it for use off your property. If the person or organisation that sells you the gun wishes to take the risk of letting you have a gun without transferring it out of their name, they must prepare themselves for the penalties they will incur when they cannot produce the weapon for their yearly registration, as well as taking the risk of being held partially liable for any crimes committed with a weapon that is still legally theirs. If the language "registration" doesn't make it clear, think of it as renewing your title to the gun once yearly.

*"Would the funds collected for gun registration be used to build and maintain public ranges that are free, just like auto registration fees are used to build and maintain roads that are free?"
I am under the impression that gas taxes are what are used to fund roads, and registration fees are used to maintain the bureaucracy of keeping track of the autos. If you wish, I am not against putting a tax on bullets to pay for public shooting ranges.

*"Cars kill infinitely more people than guns do, so are you advocating a revision to the auto registration laws to prevent this?"
I don't understand how the second half of this question follows from the first, unless you are asserting that automobiles would be safer withoutregulation and registration.

*"The right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, but auto ownership is not. How do we reconcile this little tidbit of fact by requiring registration of a RIGHT?"
We require registration for voting, permits for public assembly,and numerous other forms of documentation to exercise other rights. Unless you are ready to argue that an absolutely literal interpretation of the second half of the second amendment is all that is allowed (which would allow felons to own nukes- sorry for the hyperbole), you already recognize the legitimacy of some regulation and interpretation of the text-as do I, making it easy to reconcile sensible regulation.

*"Would this registration allow me to carry my gun everywhere just like I can drive my automobile everywhere it is legal to do so without some FEDERAL government interference?"
Yes, to an extent. You can carry your gun everywhere it is legal to do so, that is self-evident. There are also places where you may not put your car (no parking zones come to mind) and there are places you may not take your gun. What you mean by "federal gov. interference" is hazy to me given the context of our discussion, should I take it to mean you would prefer 51 separate databases and bureaucracies to 1?
 
ponderingturtle said:
No they are most frequently given to the person by a family membet or some such. Only a minority are stolen.
Click to expand...

Still, there is a record of the legal purchaser. That already exists, and has since the form 4473 was put in place. It's no problem to trace a gun back to the purchaser.

I would imagine that a family member providing a gun to a criminal would face charges.

I was in a gun shop in Virginia last year when a VA State Trooper walked in and asked to see the book mentioned in the Wiki article. He was tracing a handgun back to the original purchaser. The book was immediately shown to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom