Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/15/2016 11:32:09 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler
And instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates...Because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion... I think we can disagree without impugning other people's motives or without being disagreeable. We don't need to be talking past one another... Because people are dying. And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do.
...


We've tried additional laws and further infringing on the Second Amendment, yes?

Let's take the opposite approach and arm everyone.

(in reply to DominantWrestler)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 8:04:41 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
No we haven't as a matter of fact.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 10:16:27 AM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No we haven't as a matter of fact.


Have we tried passing more laws (that criminals ignore)? Yes, since 1968 (or, arguably, 1934).
Have we tried arming people en masse? No.

Lets try arming everyone. Have the government issue a Colt (because Merica!) AR15 to every household, like they do in Switzerland (except they arm their citizens with a Sig 550), and supply, say, 60 rounds of M855 ammunition, enough for two standard issue 30-round magazines. Start making rifle training a mandatory event that occurs yearly.

If that doesn't work the anti-rights advocates really can come for one's gun.

It's a win any way you look at it.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 10:33:54 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
what laws since 1968 have been passed? there is no try, only do.

The laws passed are not the right ones, not effective, hobbled by design. Universal background checks? Not there. Know who blows a headpipe who has guns? Not there. Update and keep current the NICS database? Not there or not funded.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 10:44:24 AM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

what laws since 1968 have been passed? there is no try, only do.


The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007

To name a few.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The laws passed are not the right ones, not effective, hobbled by design. Universal background checks? Not there. Know who blows a headpipe who has guns? Not there. Update and keep current the NICS database? Not there or not funded.


So after we have "universal background checks" and NICS properly funded (and populated with data), that'll be it? Nobody will want to pass any additional laws that further infringe on rights? Swearsies?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 10:58:54 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Lets try arming everyone. Have the government issue a Colt (because Merica!) AR15 to every household, like they do in Switzerland (except they arm their citizens with a Sig 550), and supply, say, 60 rounds of M855 ammunition, enough for two standard issue 30-round magazines. Start making rifle training a mandatory event that occurs yearly.


I think that's as stupid an idea as taking everyone's guns.

No one should be forced to own a gun (or to attend annual rifle training) against one's will.

I know you were making a not-so-serious hypothetical, but there ARe people who ARe seriously saying shit like that. ARming "everyone" means ARming people with an IQ lower than a turnip; people who have mental deficiencies that make ARming them dangerous to themselves and anyone within range; people who wish to do no good, etc. Then, you have "peaceniks," who oppose guns. You're going to force them to own a gun and train annually? How do you really think that will work out?

Anti-gun people should not have any right to prevent me from owning a gun if I want one. Pro-gun people should not have any right to force someone to own a gun, if that someone doesn't want one.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 11:57:59 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Still waiting on your explanation on why your Obama administration wants to take guns out of the hands of Americans and yet putting guns into the hands of the Mexican Cartel, with no effort to trace them - was a good idea.



If the Obama Administration wanted to take guns out of American's hands, why has there been no action taken in nearly eight years?





Oops I spoke too soon:

President Obama has said time and again that his greatest disappointment was that he was unable to enact new gun control legislation to further restrict the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. In an effort to do an end run around Congress and enact some of that legislation, the Obama administration enacted some new policies that would make it impossible for some disabled vets to purchase guns and might even lead to their existing firearms being confiscated. That very nightmare scenario — the VA forcibly confiscating the firearms of a disabled veteran — almost happened in Idaho yesterday, but the VA was stopped in its tracks by a grassroots group of local residents. And the sheriff. And some politicians. All of whom stood on the man’s front yard to prevent the confiscation.

quote:


From the AP:

A group of residents in northern Idaho lined up outside a U.S. Navy veteran’s house on Thursday to protest claims that federal officials are planning on confiscating the man’s weapons.

Idaho Republican state Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard said the Veteran Affairs office has sent a letter to John Arnold of Priest River warning him that he cannot possess or purchase firearms.

The protest -spearheaded by Scott- attracted roughly 100 people. Among them were Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who promised to stand guard against any federal attempts to remove Arnold’s guns, and Republican Washington state Rep. Matthew Shea of Spokane Valley, who described the event as a “defiance against tyranny.”

“I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and uphold the laws of Idaho,” Wheeler said. “This seemed appropriate to show my support. I was going to make sure Mr. Arnold’s rights weren’t going to be breached.”

During Thursday’s demonstration, the group at times broke out in song to sing “God Bless America” and pray while waving both the American flag and the “Don’t tread on me” flag. With a population of just 1,700, Priest River is near the tip of northern Idaho- a region known for its strong tea party roots and gun-rights activism.

According to local news sources, the VA had sent the man a letter stating that an inspector was going to come to his house on the 6th to inspect his firearms and confiscate them. The VA confirmed that they sent the man a letter, but they deny that the VA has the power to confiscate guns from anyone. Which is true — the VA has reportedly been working with the FBI as their muscle to perform the actual confiscations. From the article on that particular issue:

A memo from February of 2012 was first obtained by the Daily Caller and titled “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM,” has been causing quite the stir.

This particular memo dictates that the VA must submit veterans health-related information to the FBI by way of encrypted compact disc and mailed quarterly. It states that the records will be used to update the NICS or National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

A separate document revealed that the VA provides a monthly list of veterans who have been rated by the VA as incapable of managing their VA benefits. A simple act of changing ones banking information could get a veteran on this list, as well as refusal to take the VA prescribed pills.

There’s a very dangerous game being played here. Much like with the terrorist watch list, people could be added to these secret no-gun lists at any time (and even by mistake) and then get a lovely knock on their door from the friendly local FBI agent to come violate their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

In this case it looks like a paperwork change has caused this chain of events to kick off. Some people are saying that there’s a well known process for milking the VA for a little more change in the monthly disability check that involves declaring yourself unable to manage your own finances. That doesn’t mean the vet in question actually has any mental issues at all — it simply means that he claims he can’t balance his checkbook and needs someone to do it for him. In the eyes of the VA that apparently puts him on the same level of the crazy scale as James Holmes and qualifies for firearms confiscation. The end result is that the disabled vet in question now has to spend his own time money and effort to prove to the VA that he isn’t dangerous before they stop trying to confiscate his firearms. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

The ongoing stigma against people with a mental disability has made them an easy target in the gun control arena. President Obama and the rest of the gun control cheering squad have been using people with mental issues as a favorite whipping post, blaming everyone with even a slight case of ADD for all the gun related ills of the world. What you see here is the end result: people with mental disabilities having their rights trampled without any due process simply because Obama and Bloomberg think that they are an easy target.


So you're ok with the VA mailing a vet's confidention health records the the FBI every quarter, is that right joether.
And if the man gets sick - confiscating his guns - even tho those guns should belong to his wife, or family is that right?

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 12:03:18 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Still waiting on your explanation on why the obama administration removed the identifying marks off guns and made them untraceable and walked them to the Mexican cartels

Cuz it sure sounds as if either

a) the obama administration cut a deal with the crime cartels and promised them guns - maybe guns for aliens?
b) Who did the obama administration need to get untraceable weapons to? Syria?
c) Why did the obama administration want to support the cartels in their efforts to import drugs into the US, or fight the Mexican government?

So exactly why did the obama administration give more than 2000 guns to the Mexican crime cartels?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 12:08:59 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Lets try arming everyone. Have the government issue a Colt (because Merica!) AR15 to every household, like they do in Switzerland (except they arm their citizens with a Sig 550), and supply, say, 60 rounds of M855 ammunition, enough for two standard issue 30-round magazines. Start making rifle training a mandatory event that occurs yearly.


I think that's as stupid an idea as taking everyone's guns.

quote:

No one should be forced to own a gun (or to attend annual rifle training) against one's will.


Why not? I'm forced to buy health insurance.

And lets make it a $10,000 penalty and/or 3 years in jail if they don't.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/16/2016 1:04:50 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 1:04:35 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
No one should be forced to own a gun (or to attend annual rifle training) against one's will.


Seems the founders didn't agree with you.


The second Militia Act, passed May 8, 1792, conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

"every citizen, ...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.[5]

And according to US code 311 - still in force

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Lest you think this is an aberration:

Connecticul:
Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: “That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service. A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741.[

Virginia:

A 1684 statute required free Virginians to “provide and furnish themselves with a sword, musquet and other furniture fitt for a soldier… two pounds of powder, and eight pounds of shott….”[vii] A similar 1705 statute required every foot soldier to arm himself “with a firelock, muskett, or fusee well fixed” and gave him eighteen months to comply with the law before he would subject to fine.[viii] There are minor modifications to the statute in 1738 that still required all members of the militia to appear at musters with the same list of gun choices, but reduced the ammunition requirement to one pound of powder and four pounds of lead balls.[ix] A 1748 revision is also clear that militiamen were obligated to provide themselves with “arms and ammunition.”[x] The 1748 statute, however, did acknowledge that all freemen might not be wealthy enough to arm themselves, and provided for issuance of arms “out of his majesty’s magazine.”[xi] By 1755, all cavalry officers were obligated to provide themselves with “holsters and pistols well fixed….”[xii]


New York:
Every Male within this government from Sixteen to Sixty years of age, or not freed by public Allowance, shall[,] if freeholders[,] at their own, if sons or Servants[,] at their Parents and Masters Charge and Cost, be furnished from time to time and so Continue well furnished with Arms and other Suitable Provition hereafter mentioned: under the penalty of five Shillings for the least default therein[:] Namely a good Serviceable Gun, allowed Sufficient by his Military Officer to be kept in Constant fitness for present Service” along with all the other equipment required in the field

Maryland:
Similar to statutes appearing in other colonies, Maryland’s “An Act for Military Discipline” enacted in February or March of 1638/9 (O.S.) required “that every house keeper or housekeepers within this Province shall have ready continually upon all occasions within his her or their house for him or themselves and for every person within his her or their house able to bear armes[,] one Serviceable fixed gunne of bastard muskett boare…” along with a pound of gunpowder, four pounds of pistol or musket shot, “match for matchlocks and of flints for firelocks….”[xiv] A different form of this law, ordering every member of the militia to “appear and bring with him one good serviceable Gun, fixed, with Six Charges of Powder,” appears in a 1715 Maryland statute book as well.[xv] Cavalrymen were obligated to “find themselves with Swords, Carbines, Pistols, Holsters and Ammunition” with a fine for failure to appear armed at militia muster.[xvi]

Massachusetts
Massachusetts adopted a measure March 22, 1630/1 that required all adult men to be armed.[xxiii] Although this measure is not explicit that the arms were firearms, it is apparent that guns were not in short supply in Massachusetts, because within 15 years, the Colonial government had made the requirement for guns explicit, and had even become quite demanding as to what type of guns were acceptable for militia duty. An order of October 1, 1645 directed that in the future, the only arms that would be allowed “serviceable, in our trained bands… are ether full musket boare, or basterd musket at the least, & that none should be under three foote 9 inches….”[xxiv] Even those exempt from militia duty were not exempt from the requirement to have a gun in their home. A June 18, 1645 order required “all inhabitants” including those exempt from militia duty, “to have armes in their howses fitt for service, with pouder, bullets, match, as other souldiers….”[xxv]
Massachusetts Bay Colony, like many modern governments, expressed its concern about the nexus of guns and children. A May 14, 1645 order directed that “all youth within this jurisdiction, from ten yeares ould to the age of sixteen yeares, shalbe instructed, by some one of the officers of the band, or some other experienced souldier… upon the usuall training dayes, in the exercise of armes, as small guns, halfe pikes, bowes & arrows…..”[xxvi] The duty to be armed meant that even children were required to learn to use a gun

New Haven and Plymouth
New Haven Colony passed such laws in 1639, 1643, 1644, and 1646.[xxvii] Plymouth Colony did the same in 1632, 1636, and 1671 (although the last statute is less clear than the earlier two as to requiring private ownership)

New Hampshire
A statute in New Hampshire’s 1716 compilation ordered “That all Male Persons from Sixteen Years of Age to Sixty, (other than such as are herein after excepted) shall bear Arms … allowing Three Months time to every Son after his coming to Sixteen Years of Age, and every Servant so long, after his time is out, to provide themselves with Arms and Ammunition…. That every Listed Souldier and Housholder, (except Troopers) shall be always provided with a well fix’d, Firelock Musket, of Musket or Bastard-Musket bore,… or other good Fire-Arms, to the satisfaction of the Commission Officers of the Company… on penalty of Six Shillings for want of Such Arms, as is hereby required….” [emphasis in original] Similar requirements were imposed on cavalrymen.


New Jersey
New Jersey’s 1703 militia statute was similar, requiring all men “between the Age of Sixteen and Fifty years” with the exception of ministers, physicians, school masters, “Civil Officers of the Government,” members of the legislature, and slaves, to be members of the militia. “Every one of which is listed shall be sufficiently armed with one good sufficient Musquet or Fusee well fixed, a Sword or [Bayonet], a Cartouch box or Powder-horn, a pound of Powder, and twelve sizeable Bullets, who shall appear in the Field, so armed, twice every year….

Delaware
In 1742, Delaware required, “That every Freeholder and taxable Person residing in this Government (except such as are hereafter excepted) shall, on or before the First Day of March next, provide himself with the following Arms and Ammunition, viz. One well fixed Musket or Firelock, one Cartouch-Box, with Twelve Charges of Gun-Powder and Ball therein, and Three good Flints, to be approved of by the Commanding Officer of the respective Company to which he belongs, and shall be obliged to keep such Arms and Ammunition by him, during the Continuance of this Act....” There was a fine of forty shillings for those who failed to do so.

Rhode Island
There is, however, a 1639 statute that ordered “noe man shall go two miles from the Towne unarmed, eyther with Gunn or Sword; and that none shall come to any public Meeting without his weapon.”[xxxii] While not an explicit order that every man was required to own a gun, widespread gun ownership was clearly assumed. The Rhode Island city of Portsmouth did impose a requirement to own a gun in 1643, and directed militia officers to personally inspect every inhabitant of the town to verify that they had both bullets and powder

South Carolina
South Carolina’s obligation to own a gun is not explicit, but did require “all, and every person and persons now in this Colony” to “appeare in armes ready fitted in their severall Companies….”[xxxiv] “Armes,” of course, might include a sword or other non-firearm weapon, but South Carolina’s 1743 requirement to bring guns to church (to be discussed later), suggests that “armes” meant guns.

North Carolina
North Carolina passed militia laws in or before 1715 and in 1746 that were similar in form. The earlier statute required every member of the militia (every freeman between 16 and 60) to show up for muster “with a good Gun well-fixed Sword & at least Six Charges of Powder & Ball” or pay a fine.[xxxv] The 1746 statute obligated “all the Freemen and Servants... between the Age of Sixteen Years, and Sixty” to enlist in the militia, and further, required all such persons “be well provided with a Gun, fit for Service,… and at least Twelve Charges of Powder and Ball, or Swan Shot, and Six spare Flints.....” Failure to have those when called to militia muster would subject one to a fine of two shillings, eight pence, “for Want of any of the Arms, Accoutrements, or Ammunition....” Interestingly enough, unlike other colonies, the definition of militia member under both statutes did not exclude free blacks.[xxxvi] According to John Hope Franklin, “free Negroes served in the militia of North Carolina with no apparent discrimination against them.

Georgia
Georgia
Georgia’s long and poorly written militia law of 1773 at first appears to provide for the government to arm the militia, since it declares that the governor or military commander may “assemble and call together all male Persons in this Province from the Age of Sixteen Years to Sixty Years… at such times, and arm and array them in such manner as is hereafter expressed….”[xxxviii] But later the statute directs that, “every Person liable to appear and bear arms at any Exercise Muster or Training… Shall constantly keep and bring with them… one Gun or Musket fit for Service[,] one Catridge [sic] Box with at least Nine Catridges filled with Good Gun Powder and Ball that shall fit his Piece[,] a horn or Flask containing at least a Quarter of a Pound of Gun Powder[,] a shot Pouch with half a pound of Bulletts….”


From https://www.saf.org/journal/16/ColonialFirearmRegulation.htm


And since this is often forgotten..
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
quote:


KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.

The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.

"I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part."

Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.

"I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."

Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.

Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.

"The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said.

According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.


Kennesaw passed a law that all heads of households own guns - and the crime rate dropped to the lowest of any city that size - and has stayed there.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/16/2016 1:05:14 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 1:40:07 PM   
Master4ownedslv


Posts: 1
Joined: 1/14/2016
Status: offline
I spent the latter part of December in Sonora Mexico, and I can add a few data points to the debate.

1. On entering Mexico (via bus), nobody bothered checking passports. All the luggage was x-rayed, though. At the bus stop in Hermosillo, passengers had to debark so they could search the bus.
2. On the return trip, the bus stopped at a military (NOT police) checkpoint in the middle of the desert, and all bags were x-rayed again.
3. No drug dogs were seen at any Mexican security stop. Only the US side of the border had drug dogs, or bothered to look at passports.

My conclusion: Mexican enforcement is looking for guns, American enforcement is looking for drugs & money.

< Message edited by Master4ownedslv -- 1/16/2016 1:43:21 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 1:48:08 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
Lets try arming everyone. Have the government issue a Colt (because Merica!) AR15 to every household, like they do in Switzerland (except they arm their citizens with a Sig 550), and supply, say, 60 rounds of M855 ammunition, enough for two standard issue 30-round magazines. Start making rifle training a mandatory event that occurs yearly.

I think that's as stupid an idea as taking everyone's guns.
quote:

No one should be forced to own a gun (or to attend annual rifle training) against one's will.

Why not? I'm forced to buy health insurance.
And lets make it a $10,000 penalty and/or 3 years in jail if they don't.

2 wrongs don't make a right....


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 1:55:56 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

Yet even with strict firearm laws, magazine size limits and so forth, more firearms came from California than Arizona. How do you explain this as you hold the firearm laws, and not other factors, accountable?

Maye because california has five times the population of arizona.
Calfornia also has a greater population than both texas and arizona combined. So the comparison would be 19% vs 51% for those who choose to do math honestly.

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 1:59:10 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Weapons dealers sell ak47s $200 $250.

Why exactly do you think they would pay $1000 for a us semi automatic. When you can get a full automatic for one quarter the cost.

The ak is also a better weapon

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 2:00:17 PM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: ifmaz

Yet even with strict firearm laws, magazine size limits and so forth, more firearms came from California than Arizona. How do you explain this as you hold the firearm laws, and not other factors, accountable?

Maye because california has five times the population of arizona.
Calfornia also has a greater population than both texas and arizona combined. So the comparison would be 19% vs 51% for those who choose to do math honestly.



quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
How do you explain this as you hold the firearm laws, and not other factors, accountable?


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 2:04:19 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
No one should be forced to own a gun (or to attend annual rifle training) against one's will.

Seems the founders didn't agree with you.
The second Militia Act, passed May 8, 1792, conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)
"every citizen, ...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.[5]
And according to US code 311 - still in force


You must have missed this part:
    quote:

    The authority to call forth the militia was first invoked by George Washington to put down the Whiskey rebellion in Western Pennsylvania in 1794, just before the law granting that authority expired. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795, which by and large mirrored the provisions of the 1792 Act. The Militia Act of 1795 was in turn amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. It was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.


So, it looks like after 1903, only those in the "organized military reserves" (aka USNG) were the ones that would be required to own guns.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 2:06:38 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Fast and Furious forced legitimate dealers to provide guns to......the cartels.


That would by your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more.


http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 2:08:50 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Once again you are factless.

It is you who is not factless but also full of shit.

http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 2:29:48 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Oops I spoke too soon:

That very nightmare scenario — the VA forcibly confiscating the firearms of a disabled veteran — almost happened in Idaho yesterday, but the VA was stopped in its tracks by a grassroots group of local residents. And the sheriff. And some politicians. All of whom stood on the man’s front yard to prevent the confiscation.


And yet you have already said you approve of such.

"You want to fix a problem - fine - fix the problem that liberals obsess about gun ownership - because otherwise I don't see a gun problem. I see crime problem, I see a mental health problem,"
From the AP:

A group of residents in northern Idaho lined up outside a U.S. Navy veteran’s house on Thursday to protest claims that federal officials are planning on confiscating the man’s weapons.

Idaho Republican state Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard said the Veteran Affairs office has sent a letter to John Arnold of Priest River warning him that he cannot possess or purchase firearms.


Oh my it appears he has mental health problems.



“I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and uphold the laws of Idaho,” Wheeler said. “This seemed appropriate to show my support. I was going to make sure Mr. Arnold’s rights weren’t going to be breached.”

Anoher fool in favor of the mentally ill having guns.



According to local news sources, the VA had sent the man a letter stating that an inspector was going to come to his house on the 6th to inspect his firearms and confiscate them. The VA confirmed that they sent the man a letter, but they deny that the VA has the power to confiscate guns from anyone. Which is true — the VA has reportedly been working with the FBI as their muscle to perform the actual confiscations. From the article on that particular issue:

A memo from February of 2012 was first obtained by the Daily Caller and titled “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM,” has been causing quite the stir.


A separate document revealed that the VA provides a monthly list of veterans who have been rated by the VA as incapable of managing their VA benefits.

Mental incapacity is a valid reason, as you have so stated, for denying one the possession of a gun.

A simple act of changing ones banking information could get a veteran on this list,

You seem to lack any proof of this bullshit assertion. He was not making a change of address he was claiming incompetance to manage his affairs and appointing a proctor.


as well as refusal to take the VA prescribed pills.

No one is required to take any va prescribed pills. You are making shit up again.

There’s a very dangerous game being played here. Much like with the terrorist watch list, people could be added to these secret no-gun lists at any time (and even by mistake) and then get a lovely knock on their door from the friendly local FBI agent to come violate their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

Now you are just lying.

In this case it looks like a paperwork change has caused this chain of events to kick off. Some people are saying that there’s a well known process for milking the VA for a little more change in the monthly disability check that involves declaring yourself unable to manage your own finances.


Who are these "some people" you speak of who claim that committing fraud is common among disabled vets?


That doesn’t mean the vet in question actually has any mental issues at all — it simply means that he claims he can’t balance his checkbook and needs someone to do it for him.


You are lying again.


In the eyes of the VA that apparently puts him on the same level of the crazy scale as James Holmes and qualifies for firearms confiscation. The end result is that the disabled vet in question now has to spend his own time money and effort to prove to the VA that he isn’t dangerous before they stop trying to confiscate his firearms. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

He was the one who you claim committed fraud to make a few bux by claimin he was crazy

The ongoing stigma against people with a mental disability has made them an easy target in the gun control arena.


You have already said that the mentally defective should not be allowed a gun. Why the change of heart? why do you think crazy people should have guns?

So you're ok with the VA mailing a vet's confidention health records the the FBI every quarter,

You are a liar. Your own post shows you are lying. Your own post states that the names of the crazy people are sent to the fbi not their records. Stop lying it makes you look more foolish than ever.





(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico - 1/16/2016 2:37:44 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: ifmaz


ORIGINAL: thompsonx



Yet even with strict firearm laws, magazine size limits and so forth, more firearms came from California than Arizona. How do you explain this as you hold the firearm laws, and not other factors, accountable?

Maye because california has five times the population of arizona.
Calfornia also has a greater population than both texas and arizona combined. So the comparison would be 19% vs 51% for those who choose to do math honestly.



ORIGINAL: ifmaz
How do you explain this as you hold the firearm laws, and not other factors, accountable?



It would seem that the other factors are what have caused california to have a rate more than two times less than the other. How else would you explane it? Two similar populations and one being more than twice the exporter of illegal weapons.

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156