GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-24-2013, 21:26   #51
Stock Perfection
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 87
A truly free society (our Constitutional Republic) may not appear safer, from our current perspective, but some considerable study will bear it out. The effort it takes to understand is a small price to pay. The alternative- submission, has no option but to provide for those who wish to choose for you.
Stock Perfection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:24   #52
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,694
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by skorper View Post
As to it being on the license, that 4 or 5 year interval would be problematic. How about a "No" No Go" system? Just going to get a background check once you decide you are going to be looking to buy a gun? It would have a time limit on it. Say like 30 days. You could have it available to show a dealer or a private seller.

As far as privacy issues are concerned, you are not telling anyone your history by having a "no firearms restrictions" on a background check. On the contrary. And as far as dealing with LEO's or the court system, how could having one possibly be prejudicial? Or even not having one for that matter.

I could see where a "No Go" would be prejudicial however. But of course then you just wouldn't be issued anything.
You guys must live in a serious state denial. You obviously voted for the king.

How about we enforce the laws that are on the books right now. Stop trying to criminalize a Constitutionally protected right. Stop trying to make things harder and harder on the law abiding gun owner because "It's for the children"

If either of you two are actually gun owners (and I have my doubts), I'd be tremendously shocked.

IGF
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:29   #53
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Let me show you something about your question:

While it's a long shot, why should we take the chance on selling AR-15 style rifles? I mean, there's an outside chance that someone might take one and use it to kill a bunch of people. No, it would be easier to just not allow them to be sold at all because of that minimal risk.

Yes, selling a gun in private sales are a risk. Unless you're saying private sales should be done away with (and good luck selling THAT around here!), then you're just going to have accept that there are risks. This is an idea to try and help the good guys stay good guys, that's all.
I have a built in aversion to committing rape, murder, theft and other felonies. Perhaps you need the threat of arrest and imprisonment to keep your urges to do bad things in check. The family and friends I associate with manage to not do things like that because they are better people than that.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.
G26S239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:03   #54
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,694
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
I have a built in aversion to committing rape, murder, theft and other felonies. Perhaps you need the threat of arrest and imprisonment to keep your urges to do bad things in check. The family and friends I associate with manage to not do things like that because they are better people than that.
Excellent!!!!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:33   #55
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
I have a built in aversion to committing rape, murder, theft and other felonies. Perhaps you need the threat of arrest and imprisonment to keep your urges to do bad things in check. The family and friends I associate with manage to not do things like that because they are better people than that.
If that's what you took from what I said, then you're willfully being an idiot.

I'm talking about someone trying to do the right thing, but having no way of knowing whether a potential buyer is a felon or not. Everyone gets their panties in a bunch about "government intervention" if you suggest background checks for private sales, so the only other option available to make sure you don't ACCIDENTALLY sell a firearm to a felon is to never make a face-to-face private sale.

I'm not talking about someone who says "Well, I was GOING to follow the law, but it's just so gosh darn easy not to, screw it! Who's going to know!" To imply that's what I was saying just means you read exactly one line of one post and then jumped to a conclusion that fits your worldview, regardless of whether it has any bearing on what I was saying.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:39   #56
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
You guys must live in a serious state denial. You obviously voted for the king.

How about we enforce the laws that are on the books right now. Stop trying to criminalize a Constitutionally protected right. Stop trying to make things harder and harder on the law abiding gun owner because "It's for the children"

If either of you two are actually gun owners (and I have my doubts), I'd be tremendously shocked.

IGF
You're the worst kind of arrogant fool around here. Someone disagrees with you, so you resort to calling them liars and accusing them of all sorts of nonsense.

Tell me, if you would, in detail how this plan would make ONE second of difference to a non-felon, law-abiding gun owner. You can't, because it puts NO burden on them. None, at all. This is an idea to do EXACTLY what you're calling for - enforce laws already on the books by limiting one of the ways ALREADY CONVICTED FELONS buy guns. That's it. Period. Nothing more. The onus fall directly on the felon because they would have to carry the identification that shows they're not allowed to purchase.

You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about in my first post when I mentioned people getting pissy about "anything having to do with something that even REMOTELY resembles gun control." But this isn't about gun control. This is about FELON control, and it REDUCES the burden on gun owners. If you're too thick to see that, then it's people like YOU that will keep the anti-gunners going after private sales and gunshow loopholes.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:56   #57
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You have the exact same narrow-minded view as so many anti-gunners.

The quesion you asked that's most important is "how is this gonna stop felons from getting guns?" and the answer is that it is NOT going to stop felons from getting guns. It will stop SOME felons from getting guns.

There will never - ever - be a solution that means bad guys don't ever get guns again. But this is as foolish as some people hear in Illinois that say "Screw CCW! We want nothing less than no-license carry!!" That's a great thing to say for rhetoric, but just isn't reality.

So, no, this idea would not STOP felons from getting guns. If you're holding out for a 100% solution with a smile behind your hand because you know it's not possible, then you're helping goad the anti's into going all out.

Yes, this would be voluntary. But, as a seller, I'd like some assurance that who I'm selling to is less likely to go out and take down a bank with it. Right now, the only way I'd ever sell a gun is through an FFL. And before anyone attacks me for THAT, that's my choice. I'm not saying that's what everyone should do.

No, this is not a flawless, 100% fool-proof answer. It's simply one step that I think that COULD be taken to take a bite out of the problem.

Please point out to me where I asked for a fool-proof answer. I asked how this would be implemented and enforced. How is this any better than what we have now? You sound like the Brady campaign. Willing to whittle our rights away one "bite" at a time. What you are suggesting would be rather expensive to implement, difficult to enforce, and admitting only stop "some" felons from buying firearms from a legal gun owner. This isn't a problem now. The problem now is the black market on guns, gun theft, and little enforcement of the laws currently on the books.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:57   #58
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,694
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You're the worst kind of arrogant fool around here. Someone disagrees with you, so you resort to calling them liars and accusing them of all sorts of nonsense.

Tell me, if you would, in detail how this plan would make ONE second of difference to a non-felon, law-abiding gun owner. You can't, because it puts NO burden on them. None, at all. This is an idea to do EXACTLY what you're calling for - enforce laws already on the books by limiting one of the ways ALREADY CONVICTED FELONS buy guns. That's it. Period. Nothing more. The onus fall directly on the felon because they would have to carry the identification that shows they're not allowed to purchase.

You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about in my first post when I mentioned people getting pissy about "anything having to do with something that even REMOTELY resembles gun control." But this isn't about gun control. This is about FELON control, and it REDUCES the burden on gun owners. If you're too thick to see that, then it's people like YOU that will keep the anti-gunners going after private sales and gunshow loopholes.
I have no desire to tell you how your plan would fail, because it's already been mentioned by several in this thread.

All these "great ideas" posted by you, and other "Pro gun Democrats"... it's just a back door for them to put more restrictions in place. You think NY will stop at 7rds? I highly doubt it, eventually, 7 will be to much, and it will be 5. Or maybe nobody really needs a semiauto pistol, because a wheel gun can do the same thing...

It has nothing to do with being arrogant or calling someone a liar.. it's the fact that I have watched the anti-gun movement do this since my late teens.

You're in a gun free utopia, I'm not sure why you're concerned.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:00   #59
gommer
Senior Member
 
gommer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,093
Personally, I think having a drivers license itself should be enough.

But I also think if you aren't considered safe enough to own a firearm you shouldn't be able to drive a car, either.
gommer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:02   #60
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
I have no desire to tell you how your plan would fail, because it's already been mentioned by several in this thread.

All these "great ideas" posted by you, and other "Pro gun Democrats"... it's just a back door for them to put more restrictions in place. You think NY will stop at 7rds? I highly doubt it, eventually, 7 will be to much, and it will be 5. Or maybe nobody really needs a semiauto pistol, because a wheel gun can do the same thing...

It has nothing to do with being arrogant or calling someone a liar.. it's the fact that I have watched the anti-gun movement do this since my late teens.

You're in a gun free utopia, I'm not sure why you're concerned.
Bingo was his nameo..


I love the hypocrisy of WarCry crying about you calling him names when that is exactly his MO when he is asked to substantiate his claims..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9

Last edited by whoflungdo; 01-25-2013 at 08:03..
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:04   #61
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
So, the question then becomes: If you're selling a gun, how do you know you're not selling it to a felon?
Why do I even care? The world is mostly made up of convicted felons and unconvicted felons. I don't consider one more dangerous than the other and the law only prohibits selling if I have reason to know the person is a convicted felon.

Quote:
So why not put it on a drivers licence or state ID?

We put information on there that says you have to wear glasses to drive. It's listed on there (in most states, very boldly) that you're under 21. It's even on a lot of licenses that you're an organ donor.

If you're convicted of a felony, why not make that a stipulation? That you have to have an ID on you at all times after you're released, and that the ID will have a note that says "Felon" or some other word or phrase that indicates this is a restricted person. If the person gets their rights reinstated by the governor or whatever, then this restriction can be removed from the license/ID.
That's a great idea, because when somebody gets out of prison the best thing we can do to make sure they integrate back into society and become a law abiding member is...make sure they are permanently labelled and made an outcast so they can't work and are relegated to the company of other criminals.

Did that seem sarcastic? It was, because that's a really dumb idea. We create much of our crime problem in this country by our fixation on life-long punishment for people. Punishment, followed by a chance to redeem and start over, would be much more effective.

How about this - we quit labelling people convicted of a felony for the rest of their lives, so when they get out of prison they have the same rights as anybody else. Then, we can realistically claim we are trying to get them to be productive citizens, instead of the wink and nod BS we do now.

You don't claim you're teaching somebody to swim and then put a ball and chain on their ankle and expect results.
__________________
Open carry activists are to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is to free speech.

Last edited by Bren; 01-25-2013 at 08:07..
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:25   #62
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,694
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
That's a great idea, because when somebody gets out of prison the best thing we can do to make sure they integrate back into society and become a law abiding member is...make sure they are permanently labelled and made an outcast so they can't work and are relegated to the company of other criminals.
Hmm, that's a good point. So what we'll do, is we'll require everyone to get an "Employment ID".. an ID that can only be used to get a job.. it will remove this discriminating information.

I mean.. it's for the felons.

IGF
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:28   #63
badge315
Senior Member
 
badge315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middleburg, FL
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
That's a great idea, because when somebody gets out of prison the best thing we can do to make sure they integrate back into society and become a law abiding member is...make sure they are permanently labelled and made an outcast so they can't work and are relegated to the company of other criminals.

Did that seem sarcastic? It was, because that's a really dumb idea. We create much of our crime problem in this country by our fixation on life-long punishment for people. Punishment, followed by a chance to redeem and start over, would be much more effective.

How about this - we quit labelling people convicted of a felony for the rest of their lives, so when they get out of prison they have the same rights as anybody else. Then, we can realistically claim we are trying to get them to be productive citizens, instead of the wink and nod BS we do now.

You don't claim you're teaching somebody to swim and then put a ball and chain on their ankle and expect results.
Thank you.
__________________
"I am the sum of all evil...yet many still seek me out; a green jewel they must possess. But see how I destroy their lives."

- The Loc-Nar
badge315 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 08:50   #64
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
the law only prohibits selling if I have reason to know the person is a convicted felon.
This is patently false. How many times have you heard the phrase "ignorance is no defense"? If you sell a gun to a felon and you get caught doing it, tell me how far you're going to get saying "but I didn't KNOW he was a felon!"

If you're selling a firearm, then that is a reason to know if the person is a convicted felon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
That's a great idea, because when somebody gets out of prison the best thing we can do to make sure they integrate back into society and become a law abiding member is...make sure they are permanently labelled and made an outcast so they can't work and are relegated to the company of other criminals.

Did that seem sarcastic? It was, because that's a really dumb idea. We create much of our crime problem in this country by our fixation on life-long punishment for people. Punishment, followed by a chance to redeem and start over, would be much more effective.
This is the reality of the world. Employers ask about prior criminal history. If someone answers falsely, it can cost them their job. You're talking about a fantasy world that does not exist - and, to the best of my knowledge, never has. Part and parcel of being convicted of a crime is being considered a felon. That's part of the punishment, and it's not a burden IMPOSED on them, it's part of the risk they take when they commit the felony. Life is full of choices, and those choices have consequences.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
How about this - we quit labelling people convicted of a felony for the rest of their lives, so when they get out of prison they have the same rights as anybody else. Then, we can realistically claim we are trying to get them to be productive citizens, instead of the wink and nod BS we do now.

You don't claim you're teaching somebody to swim and then put a ball and chain on their ankle and expect results.
So, then, you're calling for the complete repeal of things like Megan's Law, and you're asking for the complete dismantling of any and all systems related to these offenders, correct? Because once they've served their time and completed any probationary period, then they're free to live their lives in peace with no further reporting needed, correct?
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:00   #65
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
This is patently false. How many times have you heard the phrase "ignorance is no defense"? If you sell a gun to a felon and you get caught doing it, tell me how far you're going to get saying "but I didn't KNOW he was a felon!"

.....
I suggest a little light reading and educate yourself..

Intent would have to be proved.

Quote:
Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unli...ensed-transfer

ETA: The quote you are looking for is ignorance of the law is no excuse. That doesn't mean the same thing as ignorance as to the felony status of an individual is no defense..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9

Last edited by whoflungdo; 01-25-2013 at 11:10..
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:10   #66
pizza_pablo
USN Retired
 
pizza_pablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Western WA
Posts: 2,576
I agree with Bren, post #61.
If a person cannot be trusted with a gun, then they shouldn't be on the street, PERIOD. HA! No worries.
You say, "but the prisons are over crowded, how can we do this?"
I say, kill more criminals. Heck, there are plenty of people, in this country. If some do not want to get along, we don't need them.
__________________
If liberals don't want us to treat every Muslim like a terrorist, why do they treat every gun owner like the Newtown shooter?
pizza_pablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:18   #67
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You're the worst kind of arrogant fool around here. Someone disagrees with you, so you resort to calling them liars and accusing them of all sorts of nonsense.

Tell me, if you would, in detail how this plan would make ONE second of difference to a non-felon, law-abiding gun owner. You can't, because it puts NO burden on them. None, at all. This is an idea to do EXACTLY what you're calling for - enforce laws already on the books by limiting one of the ways ALREADY CONVICTED FELONS buy guns. That's it. Period. Nothing more. The onus fall directly on the felon because they would have to carry the identification that shows they're not allowed to purchase.

You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about in my first post when I mentioned people getting pissy about "anything having to do with something that even REMOTELY resembles gun control." But this isn't about gun control. This is about FELON control, and it REDUCES the burden on gun owners. If you're too thick to see that, then it's people like YOU that will keep the anti-gunners going after private sales and gunshow loopholes.
EVERY firearm transfer in this state run by your POS Dim party already has to go through an FFL and it does not stop a damn bit of crime. What it does is mandate a 10 day wait on private party transfers to prove you not a felon. There is no presumption of innocent unless proven guilty.

Furthermore the state takes $25, allows $10 to the FFL and then mandates that a lock MUST be bought for every PPT allowing the FFL to buy a bunch of cheap ****ty 50cent locks and sell them to the transferee for $8.95.

Also the fact that this state does harass gun owners here to such a great extent does not ever stop scum like Mark Leno from pushing for yet more bs. Anyone who thinks that the pro 2nd amendment side throwing a bone to the libtards by volunteering for more bs is going to engender their goodwill and result in no more pushing for Feinstein and Lautenberg type proposals is a damn idiot.

You pretend to be pro 2nd amendment but your DU style trolling is as obvious as a fart in an elevator.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.
G26S239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:27   #68
plainsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 697
Gun Owners of American opposes this

On the grounds that the Federal Government has repeatedly violated record keeping on firearms owner's transactions.

Giving in the the wacko liberals never has made any sense. Look at their "reasonable" requests, give up your medical records, privacy, do ammo tracking, limit what you can buy, etc. It's pathetic in these day and age that some misguided gun owners still try to appease the confiscators.

Criminals are already barred from owning firearms, period.

Rather then group punishment for gunowners who have committed no crimes, we should be spending that money on locking up the dangerous nut cases.

No matter what some warm and fuzzy misguided liberal tells you, you are not going stop any criminal who has broken a dozen State and Federal laws with yet another "gun controL LAW'
plainsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:30   #69
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,694
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


It's funny how the OP's original idea is so similar to having to obtain an Illinois FOID... but it's not gun control.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:33   #70
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,694
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by plainsman View Post
Giving in the the wacko liberals never has made any sense. Look at their "reasonable" requests, give up your medical records, privacy, do ammo tracking, limit what you can buy, etc. It's pathetic in these day and age that some misguided gun owners still try to appease the confiscators.'
What's worse, is they'll come on forums like this and call people who don't want to compromise anymore than we already have "arrogant".

Then of course, when you hear about mainstream media polls, etc.. they think gun owners like the OP (who don't mind gun control) are the norm

What a sad state of affairs. Frankly I wish all the "Pro gun Democrats" would just turn in their guns and turn into anti-gun whackos. I'd rather have them clearly against us, than trying to play both sides of the fence.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 10:53   #71
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
It's funny how the OP's original idea is so similar to having to obtain an Illinois FOID... but it's not gun control.
Agreed. Shining that turd up does not change what it is.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.
G26S239 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 11:45   #72
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,865


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Why do I even care? The world is mostly made up of convicted felons and unconvicted felons. I don't consider one more dangerous than the other and the law only prohibits selling if I have reason to know the person is a convicted felon.



.........
So I found the bolded part interesting. Do you have any cites? I found that there 6 Million felons out of jail puls about 2.5Million in jail. So you think there are 140+ million people that have committed felonies out there that have not been charged and convicted? As far as I know I have never committed a felony, charged or not. About 48M are under 12 and probably can't legally commit a felony.

This is not a comment about the veracity of your point only a question about the potential hyperbole of your statement.
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 13:09   #73
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
It's funny how the OP's original idea is so similar to having to obtain an Illinois FOID... but it's not gun control.
And you continue to make yourself look like an illiterate fool.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of a FOID. This is taking the burden OFF of the law-abiding citizen (FOID) and putting it ON someone already convicted of a felony.

But keep it up, you just continue to prove that you have no interest in rational discussion and only care about attacking without even bothering to comprehend what you're reading.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 13:12   #74
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,694
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
But keep it up, you just continue to prove that you have no interest in rational discussion and only care about attacking without even bothering to comprehend what you're reading.
You finally got something right.. I have no interest in "rational discussion". Because today, you want "rational discussion"... Tomorrow, "rational" will be to just take them all.

You can keep your "rational discussion"..

IGF
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 14:41   #75
wirenut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
You finally got something right.. I have no interest in "rational discussion". Because today, you want "rational discussion"... Tomorrow, "rational" will be to just take them all.

You can keep your "rational discussion"..

IGF

THIS, it never ends until they get them ALL!
wirenut is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:40.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,076
354 Members
722 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42