Guns and Intent

  • Thread starter Deleted member 42253
  • Start date

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

Gun controls in the U.S. are being deregulated regardless even when this argument is commonplace in most states. 21 states that require no process in order to obtain a carry permit because they have removed the requirement to get a carry permit to carry a handgun legally concealed or open. It may be mal lined but it effective nonetheless.
This just means that anyone can carry, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

If there's no process to carrying, how does one stop someone who's unfit to do so, carrying a weapon?

I think it is better to simply argue that hunting rifles are or can be semi automatic even if you discounted the AR-15 platform entirely. The Browning Automatic Rifle is by default and inception for hunting and modified to be used in combat as a light automatic rifle.

Even still forcing someone else on the defensive and asking them why the gun is more lethal is far more effective and makes gun grabbers look stupid. Other people can plainly tell so more simple arguments are more effective. Explaining to them the history of the AR doesn't really do much in terms of conciseness.
Personally, I'd rather address someone's fears first - if their fears are rational, they may come around. If their fears are irrational, then no amount of talking to them - whether you use "honey" or "vinegar" - will change their mind, and being "in their face" is certainly going to entrench their anti-gun views.

Situationally dependent.
My point was - and is - that advancing on your assailant changes how the law looks at you because it muddies the water as to who is the attacker and who the defender.

If you use force against someone threatening you with serious bodily harm, a forcibly felony and/or death then you are covered legally to use lethal force against said person. The problem comes with incidentals: 1) Hitting a bystander. 2) Confusing serious bodily harm with general harm. 3) Pursuing when that threat is no longer being displayed.
Granted - and the last is one of the examples I gave of advancing on (chasing) someone.

Regardless the recorded worst mass shooting in history in the U.S. had less wounded and less killed comparatively and even still it was 23 firearms involved compared to 1 van.
I'd like to see the stats for this - the mass shooting and the use of "1 van", please?

Both are involved in crime. It is far more likely that a vehicle is used in a crime than a gun even in the U.S. considering vehicles are used to escape or evade. Firearms on the other hand overwhelmingly are still used for lawful purpose considering the ratio of number of firearms to firearms used in a crime. Even still you don't go through the same process to buy a car than you do a gun from a dealer.
I'd contest this claim that vehicles are "far more likely" to be used in crimes than a gun, never mind a weapon.

And the DGU figures are contested.

Being favorable to firearms doesn't mean I am going to sell to anyone. I think if there is evidence of foul play then that is different however. I have been on camera denying people transfers of firearms. Why? They stink like they are under the influence of substances. They say specific things that lead to SUSPICION of a crime. They can't get their story straight on the form etc. I lose a sale but I do so regardless even though it is inherently a negative for me.

Contrast that to say: A potential director of the ATF that is linked with a gun grabber institution attempting to regulate pistol braces and suggesting firearms bans and it is totally different in scope and severity.
I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to whoever is in charge of the ATF needing to be a guard dog rather than a fox, since s/he's there to monitor weapons.

Even his perceived competence is at fault and issue here. In commanding tactical squads he is a failure and still he is suggested to carry out ATF work. He is a failure in personal firearms handling so whatever he argues in terms of gun handling also irrelevant. He is a literal incompetent.
We all make mistakes - it's arguably the main way we learn.

His doing so hasn't prevented him from progressing in his chosen career.

I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - until he makes a real mess.

If he was any other father he'd be arrested. He is the president so he is immune.

Finally you are the first left person that actually agrees that Hunter should be prosecuted. Also I think Biden should be arrested for his obvious act of corruption.
Hunter may yet be prosecuted/arrested over tax and business dealings - particularly in relation with the Ukraine.

If you arrested Biden Snr., then you'd have to arrest most - if not all - of those in all the branches of government.

They've been 30+ years at it (NICS) and have made no improvement to the system overall. The total amount of firearms regulations have declined and yet firearms homicides have declined compared to the peak during the 1980s and 1990s. Mass shootings have increased but yet the number of firearms homicides is less. Violent crime is increased and decreased seemingly at random.
Certainly nothing to do with immigration.
They suggest to implement a gun registry which is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA clause.
This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get t
They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.

Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?

To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
This just means that anyone can carry, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.
"anyone" no.
If there's no process to carrying, how does one stop someone who's unfit to do so, carrying a weapon?
If they make a spectacle of themselves then they will be investigated. It just depends on the specific condition and example. Plus if someone was unfit and they obtain a firearm they could still do so it just means they are in violation and this happened routinely with prohibited persons prior to the states requiring permits. The process doesn't prevent anybody sufficiently enough to not carry given they are prohibs.
Personally, I'd rather address someone's fears first - if their fears are rational, they may come around. If their fears are irrational, then no amount of talking to them - whether you use "honey" or "vinegar" - will change their mind, and being "in their face" is certainly going to entrench their anti-gun views.
Regardless if you use honey or vinegar the odds of convincing someone is remote I would agree. The point is to give a good example of a bad example in order to convince on lookers in a public place. The way you do this is to concisely make the argument I already laid out. People generally don't have good attention spans so it is imperative you make the argument concise and not longform. You need sound bites that are easy to understand and are correct not long form stuff that people are generally going to ignore or forget in longform.
My point was - and is - that advancing on your assailant changes how the law looks at you because it muddies the water as to who is the attacker and who the defender.
But if the person who initially aggressed on you remains a threat then that person is still the attacker. Of course this highly depends if you are in a free state or not. Duty to retreat would trounce this.

Castle Doctrine and Stand your ground makes this argument viable. "I closed distance to reduce casualties and end the continual threat sooner. How? In X manner. Ok."
Granted - and the last is one of the examples I gave of advancing on (chasing) someone.
Correct I wasn't contesting the part of pursuing someone NOT continuing to display serious threat to bodily harm. I gave the example of gaining ground on someone continuing to display threat.
I'd like to see the stats for this - the mass shooting and the use of "1 van", please?
1.PNG
2.PNG
I'd contest this claim that vehicles are "far more likely" to be used in crimes than a gun, never mind a weapon.
Lots of people own vehicles. More people own vehicles than firearms. Vehicles being used in a crime doesn't necessarily mean they use a vehicle as a weapon. I think it would be better to put it as "involved in crime" rather than be "used" as the same problem persists with how you define a defensive gun use?
And the DGU figures are contested.
Fine. Statistics are hard to come by especially when there is no legal requirement to file a police report if no legal damages are sustained by either party. If you lack records then obviously you have to extrapolate and the definition of "use" which uses are legitimate and should be counted versus not is one such example.
I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to whoever is in charge of the ATF needing to be a guard dog rather than a fox, since s/he's there to monitor weapons.
Ok.
We all make mistakes - it's arguably the main way we learn.
Should an incompetent be in charge of anything? I made a mistake oopsy now give me control of the institution looking to ban firearms for nonsensical reasons because Biden a fellow gun grabber as ordered such? Imagine if I let firearms be stolen should I be allowed to sell guns after I go "oopsy my bad"? No. Why should it be any different for appointed political leaders?
His doing so hasn't prevented him from progressing in his chosen career.
That is a point in favor of me arguing the U.S. government is incompetent. If you can progress after such incompetence and not be fired or arrested for breaking departmental policy and still advance in that career then something is very wrong.
I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - until he makes a real mess.
1.PNG
When is it a real mess then?
Hunter may yet be prosecuted/arrested over tax and business dealings - particularly in relation with the Ukraine.
Most likely not.
If you arrested Biden Snr., then you'd have to arrest most - if not all - of those in all the branches of government.
I think for interfering for an investigation Biden should be prosecuted but he is immune.
Certainly nothing to do with immigration.
Its an example that processes generally go unchanged or fundamentally unchanged.
This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get t
This technically could get through Congress as outlined by other theorists on YouTube through 50 votes under conciliation considering gun control measures as a public health crises and addressed as an expense line item. Certain aspects they suggest have been getting close in house and senate. It is still possible.

You didn't reply to the last quote.
 

Dragan Glas

Well-Known Member
Greetings,

as I've mentioned before, I've been having ISP issues connecting - it seems to have dropped part of my response to the second-last paragraph and my response to the last.

This is what I'd meant to say:

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:


They suggest to implement a gun registry which is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA clause.

This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get through, it would undoubtedly be struck-down by the Supreme Court.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.

Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?

To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.
If the Supreme Court supports such legislation, then so be it.

=========================

That's what I intended saying - I'll wait for your reply to this extra bit before replying to it all in a single post. Apologies for the confusion.

Kindest regards,

James
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
BoganUSAFFLClerk said:

They suggest to implement a gun registry which is FEDERALLY PROHIBITED under the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA clause.


This would need to go through Congress - what are the chances of that? Even if it managed to get through, it would undoubtedly be struck-down by the Supreme Court.

They also suggest high taxes and confiscation of firearms.

Why would anyone allow them to steal firearms from private citizens that have no criminal record?

To arbitrarily declare something illegal and then to steal said item. If anything they are helping the argument of private ownership of firearms because they give cause for distrust the government literally is stealing items from you under legal extortion without compensation.
If the Supreme Court supports such legislation, then so be it.
Searchable Firearm Registry:
Considering cost and complexity SCOTUS has already prohibited poll taxes so I don't understand the legal argument considering the logistics of enforcing a registry even though it is federally prohibited. It would be struck down as the costs associated for the people attempting to register in order to exercise their right would be burdensome. It wouldn't be very consistent to prohibit taxing on the right the vote compared to the right to bare arms as SCOTUS has articulated before.

The cost associated to the proposed legislation would effectively mean gun owners couldn't afford to be gun owners if the firearms under ban are all they own. It would essentially prohibit ownership purely due to cost. You can't prohibit something and make it so expensive you make it illegal according to SCOTUS although I type this in consideration of the NFA the polling tax ruling was post this and yet the NFA remains unchallenged.

Confiscation of Firearms:
Taking someone's property without compensation is already illegal when it concerns non contraband in the U.S.. You cannot simply have the government take your property and not have them reimburse you for the value of the property. this is precisely what Gun grabbers are suggesting as in order to fairly compensate owners of firearms they are lawfully in possession of with an arbitrary decree t would it take a lot of money and would threaten to compromise budgets.

Arbitrary Banning of Firearms:
The firearms they are attempting to ban aren't even part of the majority of firearms used in crimes. The vast majority include handguns - conventional handguns and not the type they are parading around as the ills and woes of American gun violence.

Even if they went through ALL of it the effects on American gun crime would be negligible considering cost and advancing more government control without a significant increase in safety is not American. Again the country is based on upbringing the individual potentially at cost of the group. This is what the country was founded on and the continued ideal of the U.S.. We are attempting to not become a nanny state and not to become one and be geared towards globalism.
 
Top