Invitation for GTPI leftist trolls to read and comment on the The Biden-Harris Gun Control Plans

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Rex Vallachorum, Sep 24, 2020.

  1. Intolerant

    Intolerant

    Messages:
    11,973
    Likes Received:
    21,847
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    I can still remember that like it was yesterday.
    All these leftists do is pander for votes. Gun laws = Feel good laws.
     
    Bus007 likes this.
  2. as400guy1

    as400guy1

    Messages:
    10,776
    Likes Received:
    12,114
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Keep in mind that biden voters identify closer with pedo rapists, trollopes, marxists, and the party of slavery than the current president.
     
    pgg00, n2g, Scott1970 and 3 others like this.

  3. Rex Vallachorum

    Rex Vallachorum Previously achieved fame and glory as Burebista

    Messages:
    5,311
    Likes Received:
    15,072
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Location:
    Last warning before banning
    That explains what happen to him yesterday. Lactose intolerance could have given him the runs.
     
    Intolerant and Bish1309 like this.
  4. Ollies930

    Ollies930

    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    465
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2020
    No need to quote my FFL in brackets, but you are wrong. the most difficult part is to make a decent fuse. Explosive materials are easy, diesel fuel and fertilizer, voila. A good fuse? Much more difficult to make, especially in a small package. So, how about we add "intent" into the mix. If is is intended to be turned into a gun, consider it a gun. Same way, if you intend to make this into a bomb, or if you intend to harm these people, then that pretty much sums it up. But you never answered the underlying question, you were just trying to find fault in my presentation, not answering the question yourself. Why are 80% guns without serial numbers so important to you? There are only two types of people that I can see, who would benefit from them. 1) Criminals, as they would avoid any background checks. 2) Anti government nuts, who believe that an ATF agent is hiding behind every corner, waiting for the go ahead to confiscate every registered gun in your house.
    If I am incorrect, please explain to me straight up, why you should be allowed to purchase something, whose sole existence is based on it being turned into a gun in a few simple steps.

    How about, at that point it is the manufacturers responsibility to supply the finished firearm with a serial number, it is an existing law.

    After reading some more about that case (my initial information was MSM left propaganda bull), even if BT's boyfriend was not a felon, he fired on properly identified police officers. If he was a felon, then he has three more felonies on record, 1) posession of a firearm, 2) felony assault with a weapon and 3) causing a death as a direct result of a felonious act. And I am sure that there are more that could be added, but I think these are enough. Even if he did not have a felony on his record, he should go to prison for his actions. And if the DA does not want to press charges, then he should rot in hell.

    As for existing laws, there are a lot of loopholes that should be addressed so criminals have less access to guns without interfering with law abiding citizens.

    And as a side note, the forever explanation that our prisons are overcrowded and it costs too much to house them and the DAs are overburdened with their case loads, etc., put the inmates to work so they can pay for the cost of their incarceration and other associated cost the taxpayers. And too bad if prisons are inhumane and have horrible conditions, most of the inmates committed inhumane acts against other humans, so they should suffer.

    What I meant, following my previous statement to the sentence you quoted, that if a felon even applies for a gun, then that should be considered a felony.

    Closing the loopholes, if worded correctly, will not interfere with legal purchases. But, by all means, please enforce the existing laws better. One of the things in recent history that I find incredibly offensive, is the guy that got shot in the arm (who is a felon, if I remember correctly) by the kid in Kenosha, was holding a gun in his hand. How come he was not arrested immediately?

    1) I hope that you are not including me with that garbage. I think that the borders should be closed and sanctuary cities should not be allowed to exist. If you are not here legally, then you should have no access to health care, education or any form of protection (other than against being harmed by criminals).

    2) Trump did the best with what information he had available. However, we still do not know enough about the virus to know how to protect ourselves from it. Masks are wothless and really do next to nothing, which is apparent if you look at the statistics between countries that required masks and the ones that did not, there is no correlation. On top of which, the president does not have the authority to tell the states that they have to wear mansks and how that should be enforced, that is up to the Governors as far as I know.
     
  5. Khufu

    Khufu Pharaoh

    Messages:
    34,423
    Likes Received:
    13,568
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Street Corner

    Not, think of that as a 1/48 scale model (or maybe 1/72?).

    Now instead of cheese and PB, put an EBT card....
     
    Bus007 likes this.
  6. KindOfBlue

    KindOfBlue

    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    873
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2020
    You've over simplified - for example on the first one, where have I said "Trump sucks"?

    I highly doubt I've ever posted that. Maybe that was your interpretation. I have said he is corrupt, mentally unstable conman who needs his ego stroked and wants to be king. I've also called him a modern day Henry VIII.
     
  7. Khufu

    Khufu Pharaoh

    Messages:
    34,423
    Likes Received:
    13,568
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Street Corner

    RIF.




    So more over, the USA courts use clear statement rules when determining if a law or statutory interpretation (i.e. rule making) from the law is legal. In addition the USA uses the rule lenity.

    Both clear statement and law lenity are violated when there is a not a clear definition. Teh law currently has clear definitions.

    There are only three types of people that I can see that want laws that are not clear statement statements 1)tyrants who want vague laws to persecute their enemies 2)People that are ignorant of the basic principles of United States Law or 3)Anti-American communists.
     
    Bus007 likes this.
  8. Khufu

    Khufu Pharaoh

    Messages:
    34,423
    Likes Received:
    13,568
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Location:
    Street Corner
    That is simply a stupid statement.

    On the surface, how many of his wives has he had removed?

    Name one politically motivated executions that PRESIDENT TRUMP has ordered and had carried out in his name? Just one. Sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley were arrested and convicted to death within two days of Henry VIII coronation. Those guys ended up a head shorter shortly thereafter. So name ONE person that President Trump had executed for political reasons. Just one.


    Or did you mean what Henry's contemporaries said about him?

    They described him as:

    "Henry's contemporaries considered him an attractive, educated, and accomplished king. He has been described as "one of the most charismatic rulers to sit on the English throne" and his reign has been described as the "most important" in English history."
     
    Bus007 and Cambo like this.
  9. Cambo

    Cambo

    Messages:
    8,009
    Likes Received:
    11,340
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Okay, you're splitting hairs. The big one is where you said guns aren't that important. I have a problem with that, especially with you being in a gun forum. It doesn't make any sense.
     
    Bus007, ExecutiveWill and Intolerant like this.
  10. Ollies930

    Ollies930

    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    465
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2020
    Not sure what that means, but after looking up acronyms I found "Realistic Imitation Firearm". If that is indeed your retort, then you are absolutely grasping at straws to justify yourself and obviously fall into one of the two options I have outlined earlier.

    So when I basically said, close the loopholes in the law, that makes me what?
     
  11. Scott1970

    Scott1970

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    4,940
    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    What loopholes are in the law allowing prohibited people to obtain firearms?
     
    pgg00 and Cambo like this.
  12. Ollies930

    Ollies930

    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    465
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2020
    The fact that you can buy a "used" gun from a private party without a background check and the fact that you can build an 80% poly gun into a functioning one in an afternoon without same background check.
     
  13. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    Messages:
    18,500
    Likes Received:
    12,263
    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    I'm going to go with "a big government statist", meaning that you advocate quite differently than the original intent.

    "Loophole" is one of those emotional terms which essentially bemoans following the law as written and hoping that it'll be expanded to provide government authority where none was intended. For example, there is no "gun show loophole". The law regulates federal licensees, not private citizens. Demanding that Joe Average jump through the same hoops as a licensee wasn't what was written, wasn't the intent.

    Likewise, 80%. You literally want serial numbers on lumps of plastic to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy. You've demanded reasons for an alternative preference and cast aspersions at those on that side of the issue. Here's my personal reason: it's none of your business. It's none of my neighbors' business and it's none of the government's business. To borrow, it neither picks your pocket not breaks your leg, so let's accept freedom as the default it was meant to be.
     
  14. Scott1970

    Scott1970

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    4,940
    Joined:
    May 22, 2006

    That’s not really a loophole since it’s illegal for felons to have guns whether they buy them or make them. That’s the law already. Based on your take on this, a felon stealing a gun would qualify as a loophole, although it’s already on the books as a crime. A crime is not a loophole, period. It’s a crime.

    The only ways to assure a felon does not have access to a gun is to either lock him up or do away with all guns. I’m for the former.
     
  15. Ollies930

    Ollies930

    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    465
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2020
    Absolutely incorrect. My intent is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. What you are infering is that it is nobody's business who buys guns. With that logic, there would be no control if everybody had access to anything they wanted, especially criminals. If everybody has access without control (it is nobodys business), then the people who will benefit from this are criminals, not law abiding citizens.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
  16. OttoLoader

    OttoLoader

    Messages:
    2,366
    Likes Received:
    3,736
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2015
    I disagree with all gun control.

    Gun control is designed on purpose to prohibit private ownership of firearms. That is the end goal.

    Pass during after some tragedy and with emotional specious logic. Use as an example New York. The Sullivan act 1915. The SAFE Act.

    Gun control does not prevent crime, and actually fosters crime because the law abiding are disarmed. Yet the criminals arevnot as they never adhere to laws. That is why they are known as criminals.

    Most criminals get their guns through other means .
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
    Bus007, ExecutiveWill and pgg00 like this.
  17. Rex Vallachorum

    Rex Vallachorum Previously achieved fame and glory as Burebista

    Messages:
    5,311
    Likes Received:
    15,072
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Location:
    Last warning before banning
    Is that so?
    Then why are you supporting laws that only law abiding citizens are bound to obey, not the criminals?

    But perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word CRIMINAL.
    Let me help you with this one:

    CRIMINAL = A person who doesn't obey laws.

    Including the laws you are supporting.
     
  18. Ollies930

    Ollies930

    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    465
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2020
    Criminals will always steal guns and if they get caught, then they should go to prison for a long time. On the other hand, if they purchase a gun from somebody, then the person that knowingly sold a gun to a criminal should be punished as well as the criminal who purchased it. The only way to know that a person is a criminal, is through a background check. Ergo, all guns sold whether through a dealer or a private person, should have to pass through a background check. If that is not the case, then why even bother? It makes as much sense as blocking half the holes in a colander to keep the water from draining.
     
  19. Scott1970

    Scott1970

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    4,940
    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    It’s illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon. It’s illegal for a felon to purchase a gun whether in a store or from an individual.

    Since there are laws on the books prescribing penalties for the above actions, the above are not loopholes.

    You keep defining criminal activity as loopholes when they are crimes. We don’t need more gun laws when we have countless gun laws on the books this very minute. We need enforcement of the law in the courtroom. There’s your loophole.
     
  20. Ollies930

    Ollies930

    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    465
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2020
    Then answer me one question, since criminals will always find access to guns, should we just do away with all the pesky background checks alltogether? And would you feel more or less safe if we abandoned all the background checks?