The 2nd Amendment as clearly written

[Trout Nazi]

. I don't buy into the paranoia that the government is about to enslave us and is planning to disarm its citizens as a first step.

This is the core of things right here. I don't think people are paranoid, but look at history. The communist revolution in Russia, Nazi Germany, Aremenian massaclre by the Turks, etc, what was the first thing that happened there? The citizens were diarmed. And if you talked to people who lived through that (I suggest you do), at the time, they lived in countries that were civilized and had made great contribution to the arts and culture, no one thought anything like that would happen there. May not happen here now, but what about 50-100, 200 years from now (if human civilization still exists)? Thats what the 2nd ammendment is all about.

 

[MACFLY]

My favorite argument of my opponents is based on the distinction between law abiding gun owners, and non law-abiding gun owners.

It is a convenient argument, to categorize all gun crime as committed by non law-abiding gun owners.

Isn't that always going to be true? That the ones that commit the crimes are not law abiding?

So who cares to distinguish law abiding from non law-abiding gun owning nut jobs?

Well that's a poor attempt to discredit a valid argument. If the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens thrn creating laws that impact their ability to legally own firearms is unfair and we all know progressives are all about fairness correct.

 

[MACFLY]

You say "paranoia" that's another false argument created by the media to paint those who don't sign up for stricter gun control as UN jobs. Let me ask you this. Would you have said 2 years ago that a law would be passed which establishes zones where free speech is not protected and in fact you can be arrested. When people talk about the tyranny of government they are not concerned about government gong house to house to take away your guns. They are referring to the soft tyranny of government where your freedoms erode over time.

Here Is an interesting statistic. California is noted for its progressive policies. However California was conceived as a rather pro business, religious freedom loving state. This propelled it to the 4th largest economy in the world. Now it's in deep financial chaos and 1 in every 4 workers in California require some form of government permission to do their job. So we should all have a healthy concern about the size and role of government in our lives.

The crap knock off guns are the result of straw purchases, and yes, I think all straw purchases should be illegal and carry severe penalties. I have absolutely nothing against gun ownership by responsible owners for self defense and recreation. I don't buy into the paranoia that the government is about to enslave us and is planning to disarm its citizens as a first step, so universal background checks and registration of guns makes sense to me. I don't know about you, but I would rather face an asshole with a knife, than an asshole with a gun. By the same logic, I would rather have a gun to defend myself if necessary than a knife. I never implied that ctobias said we shouldn't have any gun laws.

 

[CTobias]

Straw purchases are legal except in cases where the ultimate receiver of goods or services uses those goods or services in the commission of a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser. Impossible to prove. This is one of the loopholes in the gun laws that needs to be closed. I love the way you deny truth and rationalize.

Straw purchases are not legal. You can not purchase a gun and knowingly give it or sell it to a person who can't legally obtain a gun themselves.

Show me the law that says straw purchases are legal in any state.

Federal law prohibits straw purchases by criminalizing the making of false statements to an FFL about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, or presenting false identification in connection with the firearm purchase. Two federal statutes – 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) – are the primary laws under which straw purchases are prosecuted.
First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) prohibits any person:

n connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition.
​

Subject to limited exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) imposes criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, upon any person who:

[K]nowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by [federal firearms law] to be kept in the records of a person licensed under [federal firearms law] or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of [federal firearms law].
​

These false statements or representations are punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison.[SUP]14[/SUP]
In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer is never specifically linked to the gun, but both the prohibited purchaser and the straw purchaser have committed a federal felony. The straw purchaser violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)[SUP]15[/SUP] or 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)[SUP]16[/SUP] by falsely stating or falsely providing evidence that he or she is the actual gun buyer, while the prohibited purchaser – usually the actual buyer – is criminally liable for aiding and abetting the straw purchaser in such violations or in causing the making of the false statements.[SUP]17[/SUP]
Furthermore, if an FFL knew that the statements on Form 4473 were false and that a straw purchase was taking place, the FFL has also violated federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) prohibits any individual from selling a firearm to a person whom they know or have reason to know is a criminal or other prohibited buyer.[SUP]18[/SUP]
To aid FFLs in better identifying and deterring potential straw purchases, as well as educate the public on the consequences of purchasing a firearm for someone who cannot legally purchase or possess one, ATF, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have partnered to promote the “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy” campaign.[SUP]19[/SUP] ATF’s role is to identify key cities in which to launch the campaign, and provide FFLs in those metropolitan areas with enhanced training to identify straw purchasers. The NSSF’s role is to lead a public awareness campaign using print, radio and television media to educate the community on the definition of a straw purchase and the severe penalties associated with attempting such a purchase.[SUP]20[/SUP]

 

[CTobias]

The crap knock off guns are the result of straw purchases, and yes, I think all straw purchases should be illegal and carry severe penalties.

Straw purchases are illegal. Show me the law that says they are legal in any way shape or form.

 

[fishhead]

The paranoia is not a false argument. I see it being stoked by LaPierre and some politicians, and I see the results, not only in media coverage, but in social media, as well. I am guessing that you are referring to the safe zones established around some events to minimize the risk to the participants. I have no problem with them, and think that it also contributes to the safety of the demonstrators, as an erroneous or over zealous protective response from law enforcement is less likely to occur. Our population is too well armed, widely dispersed, and freedom loving for a government gun grab to ever be successful. Even non-gun owners would join in the outrage and resistance. I am a believer in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also a believer in the evolution of people and governments. The Constitution was written to allow for change, witness the provision allowing amendments. The amendments, or changes, to the Constitution have not eroded our freedoms but more clearly defined them. In the case of guns, I don't think an amendment is necessary or applicable. I don't see how background checks and gun registration infringes on the 2nd amendment or changes its intent for law-abiding citizens. It does not impact their right to own and bear arms. I do see how it would make it more difficult for people who shouldn't have them to get guns and easier to trace weapons used in crimes.
I understand concerns about the size and role of government. I am equally concerned about the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of government, and feel that if we address these issues, size will take care of itself. While California's economy has dropped to between the 9th-12th largest in the world, this has something to do with the growth of other nation's economies as well as the recent downturn in California's. Economies are historically cycular, and California's is currently growing at the 6th fastest rate in the country.

You say "paranoia" that's another false argument created by the media to paint those who don't sign up for stricter gun control as UN jobs. Let me ask you this. Would you have said 2 years ago that a law would be passed which establishes zones where free speech is not protected and in fact you can be arrested. When people talk about the tyranny of government they are not concerned about government gong house to house to take away your guns. They are referring to the soft tyranny of government where your freedoms erode over time.
I understand concerns about the size and role of government. I am concerned about the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of government. While California's economy has dropped to between the 9th-12th largest in the world, this has something to do with the growth of other nation's economies as well as the downturn in California's. Economies are historically cycular, and California's is currently growing at the 6th fastest rate in the country.
Here Is an interesting statistic. California is noted for its progressive policies. However California was conceived as a rather pro business, religious freedom loving state. This propelled it to the 4th largest economy in the world. Now it's in deep financial chaos and 1 in every 4 workers in California require some form of government permission to do their job. So we should all have a healthy concern about the size and role of government in our lives.

 

[fishhead]

There is no law against straw purchases unless you "knowingly" buy for someone who should not possess the weapon. If you do knowingly make the purchase, you are guilty of a paperwork violation for lying on your application. Since this is just about impossible to prove in most cases, the law has been ineffective.

Straw purchases are illegal. Show me the law that says they are legal in any way shape or form.

 

[CTobias]

There is no law against straw purchases unless you "knowingly" buy for someone who should not possess the weapon. If you do knowingly make the purchase, you are guilty of a paperwork violation for lying on your application. Since this is just about impossible to prove in most cases, the law has been ineffective.

Do you know the definition of a straw purchase? It is exactly that! Knowingly purchasing a gun for someone other than yourself who can not buy one legally.

Definition of straw purchase in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)
a criminal act in which a person who is prohibited from buying firearms uses another person to buy a gun on their behalf.

 

[fishhead]

You can make a straw purchase of an item, gun included, without breaking any law. It is when you have "knowingly" made this purchase to provide the weapon to someone who cannot legally own it. Straw Purchase Law & Legal Definition

Do you know the definition of a straw purchase? It is exactly that! Knowingly purchasing a gun for someone other than yourself who can not buy one legally.

Definition of straw purchase in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)
a criminal act in which a person who is prohibited from buying firearms uses another person to buy a gun on their behalf.

 

[MACFLY]

Yes it is a false argument when you take the statements of one guy and some politicians and conflate them To mean there are millions of people who believe the government is coming to take my guns tomorrow. It's especially disingenuous when you don't give voice to the other side of the debate who have on their agenda much more stringent gun restrictions than what is being publicly stated. The language in the UN treaty on global arms sales had to be modified as it had implications for gun ownership within a countries borders. If the democrats had control of the house you could almost guarantee gun control laws more stringent would pass. So the facts are there are certainly people out there that want no restrictions and there are also folks that want massive restrictions. This is what creates the inability to come to a common sense agreement.

If you are ok with these "safe zones" well we agree to disagree. The idea that these are created to protect the demonstrators is just nonsense. When the politician can determine when and where such zones exist and that you can be arrested when you are suspected of having participated in such a demonstration that is deemed "not free speech" something has gone horribly wrong. There should be no overreaction from law enforcement against free speech because it's supposedly our first amendment right or did that change. Make no mistake that this law was designed to allow politicians to speak unfettered by opposition. That's a sad situation in my book.

California is in shambles. The cyle as you call it has lasted for decades and it's directly related to the overspending, over taxation, and insane governement regulations that have been imposed on Californians.

The paranoia is not a false argument. I see it being stoked by LaPierre and some politicians, and I see the results, not only in media coverage, but in social media, as well. I am guessing that you are referring to the safe zones established around some events to minimize the risk to the participants. I have no problem with them, and think that it also contributes to the safety of the demonstrators, as an erroneous or over zealous protective response from law enforcement is less likely to occur. Our population is too well armed, widely dispersed, and freedom loving for a government gun grab to ever be successful. Even non-gun owners would join in the outrage and resistance. I am a believer in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but also a believer in the evolution of people and governments. The Constitution was written to allow for change, witness the provision allowing amendments. The amendments, or changes, to the Constitution have not eroded our freedoms but more clearly defined them. In the case of guns, I don't think an amendment is necessary or applicable. I don't see how background checks and gun registration infringes on the 2nd amendment or changes its intent for law-abiding citizens. It does not impact their right to own and bear arms. I do see how it would make it more difficult for people who shouldn't have them to get guns and easier to trace weapons used in crimes.
I understand concerns about the size and role of government. I am equally concerned about the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of government, and feel that if we address these issues, size will take care of itself. While California's economy has dropped to between the 9th-12th largest in the world, this has something to do with the growth of other nation's economies as well as the recent downturn in California's. Economies are historically cycular, and California's is currently growing at the 6th fastest rate in the country.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I have no intention of going back and reading 11 pages on this topic, but having read this last page, I can say to anyone that thinks gun registration will in some way reduce gun crimes that you are out of your mind. Criminals are just that - criminals. They're not registering guns. They are either stealing them or purchasing them illegally from other criminals. And there are tons of laws on the books to punish them if prosecutors and judges stop making so many plea deals and start locking these bad guys up for many years for any gun crimes.

For the record, straw purchases are illegal in all 50 states and anyone legally buying a gun and then selling that gun to someone that can't legally purchase one themselves knows he or she is violating that law by doing so. The paperwork we have to fill out and sign each time we buy a new gun is crystal clear on just that and it is written in bold if memory serves me correctly in several places on your paperwork. When I sell a gun to someone, I make sure they have their NJFPID card and a matching driver's license before making any deal.

 

[CTobias]

You can make a straw purchase of an item, gun included, without breaking any law. It is when you have "knowingly" made this purchase to provide the weapon to someone who cannot legally own it. Straw Purchase Law & Legal Definition

" But any violation of the Gun Control Act, 1968 make the straw purchase a felony." As per your link.

Not sure how you can even use that link as a source when their definition is riddled with spelling and grammar errors. It's on the internet, so it must be true.

I gave you citings from the Federal Statute, and you give me some uslegal.com link that anyone could have made up. Nice try.

 

[CTobias]

Try doing some real research and stop believing the propaganda you hear coming from that glowing box in front of you.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any
firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that such person --

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as
defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any
mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his
citizenship; or

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such
intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an
intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child,
except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that --

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and

(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to
the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or

threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child

that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.

 

[fishhead]

I don't see anybody calling for a gun ban. There always seems to be some kind of conspiracy and unspoken agenda. I know it is Snopes, but facts are facts. Of course, there are people at the extremes of the issue, but this shouldn't stop the vast majority of people to come to a common sense agreement. snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

The one guy is the head of the largest gun lobby in America and the politicians have millions of supporters, so I have to respectfully disagree. The Paranoia is real.

California is growing at the 6th fastest rate in the country. Are they addressing some of the problems created by overly intrusive government? Probably. I am not an absolutist. All government is neither good nor bad.

I didn't mean to imply that the purpose of the law was to keep the demonstrators safe, just that it also does. We have a history of over zealous police responses when it comes to demonstrations and threats to public officials are at an all time high. A demonstration held two blocks away from the site of a meeting does not impact its effectiveness and just who are they speaking to unfetteredly (?you know what I mean) if there are no people in the area to hear them?

Yes it is a false argument when you take the statements of one guy and some politicians and conflate them To mean there are millions of people who believe the government is coming to take my guns tomorrow. It's especially disingenuous when you don't give voice to the other side of the debate who have on their agenda much more stringent gun restrictions than what is being publicly stated. The language in the UN treaty on global arms sales had to be modified as it had implications for gun ownership within a countries borders. If the democrats had control of the house you could almost guarantee gun control laws more stringent would pass. So the facts are there are certainly people out there that want no restrictions and there are also folks that want massive restrictions. This is what creates the inability to come to a common sense agreement.

If you are ok with these "safe zones" well we agree to disagree. The idea that these are created to protect the demonstrators is just nonsense. When the politician can determine when and where such zones exist and that you can be arrested when you are suspected of having participated in such a demonstration that is deemed "not free speech" something has gone horribly wrong. There should be no overreaction from law enforcement against free speech because it's supposedly our first amendment right or did that change. Make no mistake that this law was designed to allow politicians to speak unfettered by opposition. That's a sad situation in my book.

California is in shambles. The cyle as you call it has lasted for decades and it's directly related to the overspending, over taxation, and insane governement regulations that have been imposed on Californians.

 

[fishhead]

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any
firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that such person --

Does it not say "knowingly"?

 

[CTobias]

Yeah. No one wants to ban guns.



At 1:26 "Gun Confiscation a possibility".

 

[Trout Nazi]

No, the crap knock-off guns ARE NOT the result of straw purchases, they are being imported into this country ILLEGALLY (like drugs). I actually know people in law enforcement who do this every day, but hey, lets not let facts enter into this conversation.

 

[fishhead]

Out of context. You can certainly be against guns and our gun culture without banning guns.

Yeah. No one wants to ban guns.

 

[fishhead]

I also have friends who are in law enforcement, and I worked in the criminal justice field for 30 years. Anectodal evidence is not facts. This does not address the country where the guns were manufactured, but it does address where they were bought, and why they were bought there. Gun Crime Study: 10 States Sell Half Of Imported Guns Used In Crimes

No, the crap knock-off guns ARE NOT the result of straw purchases, they are being imported into this country ILLEGALLY (like drugs). I actually know people in law enforcement who do this every day, but hey, lets not let facts enter into this conversation.

 

[CTobias]

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any
firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that such person --

Does it not say "knowingly"?

There is no other definition of a straw purchase. That's what a straw purchase is! Knowingly selling someone a gun who can't have one.

So, a straw purchase is illegal.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I don't see anybody calling for a gun ban. There always seems to be some kind of conspiracy and unspoken agenda.

There are countless thousands calling for the banning of "assault weapons", so I don't know why you'd say that. The so-called assault weapons folks are suddenly interested in banning have been in civilian hands since at least the 1960s. Pretty much any gun used in a crime including single-shot black powder smoothbores would be an "assault weapon" in my book. I find the term laughable. These are civilian models of military weapons and ours do not have select fire for bursts of full auto unless a civilian gets his proper federal license to own a full auto.

 

[fishhead]

Getting hung up on semantics here, but I will play. The definition of a straw purchase is the purchase of an item for another. Nowhere in the law you posted is a "straw purchase" defined by name. I understand that it is a crime to "knowingly" make these purchases, but it is impossible to prove the crime at the point of the original sale and almost impossible to prove on the secondary sales and beyond.

There is no other definition of a straw purchase. That's what a straw purchase is! Knowingly selling someone a gun who can't have one.

So, a straw purchase is illegal.

 

[fishhead]

The guns covered by the ban were identified. This type of ban has already been in place in the US and frankly, equating this with a total gun ban is ludicrous. Machine guns have been banned since the 30's. That being said, I personally don't give a shit about banning assault weapons. These mass shootings are just a price we have to pay for living in a free society. I do think it is kind of stupid if you don't try to keep them out of the hands of felons, lunatics, and terrorists.

There are countless thousands calling for the banning of "assault weapons", so I don't know why you'd say that. The so-called assault weapons folks are suddenly interested in banning have been in civilian hands since at least the 1960s. Pretty much any gun used in a crime including single-shot black powder smoothbores would be an "assault weapon" in my book. I find the term laughable. These are civilian models of military weapons and ours do not have select fire for bursts of full auto unless a civilian gets his proper federal license to own a full auto.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

The guns covered by the ban were identified. This type of ban has already been in place in the US and frankly, equating this with a total gun ban is ludicrous. Machine guns have been banned since the 30's. That being said, I personally don't give a shit about banning assault weapons. These mass shootings are just a price we have to pay for living in a free society. I do think it is kind of stupid if you don't try to keep them out of the hands of felons, lunatics, and terrorists.

I totally agree we shouldn't allow criminals to get their hands on any guns, not just so-called assault weapons. But ample laws already exist to do just that. I'm all for a mental health background check to see if you've ever been committed to an institution for example, but I already had to go through that when the Peoples' Republic of NJ issued me my NJFPID card long ago. The Clinton-era assault weapons ban you mention failed to do what it was supposed to do and I was happy to see it lapse and not get renewed. Seems by the lack of votes in the Senate recently, I was in strong company regardless of political party.

Violent crime peaked in the US on a per capita basis way back in 1929. Gun crimes continue to abate, not grow in numbers. I contribute that to stricter laws for using guns during a crime in large part. We just need to strengthen them a little further to take away a judge's or a prosecutor's discretion to set aside any gun crimes in a plea deal. Plea other parts of your crime, but if you used a gun during that crime, you get a mandatory minimum and make it hurt.

 

[Trout Nazi]

I also have friends who are in law enforcement, and I worked in the criminal justice field for 30 years. Anectodal evidence is not facts. This does not address the country where the guns were manufactured, but it does address where they were bought, and why they were bought there. Gun Crime Study: 10 States Sell Half Of Imported Guns Used In Crimes

Nothing anectodal about. Straight from the mouth of close family and friends in ICE and NYPD. Not just working in the "criminal justice field", but on the front lines, every day, right now.

And the Huffington Post? Really? You gonna quote Bill Mahr and John Stewert as your sources next?

 

[fishhead]

That is what anecdotal evidence is, "stories straight from the mouth" of individuals that do not provide proof. The facts are statistics. Doesn't matter who printed them. My friends and relatives are members of a number of police forces and the FBI. I was in corrections and had daily contact with violent offenders who also told me stories about how they got their guns. I do not present that as proof of anything because they are anecdotal.

Nothing anectodal about. Straight from the mouth of close family and friends in ICE and NYPD. Not just working in the "criminal justice field", but on the front lines, every day, right now.

And the Huffington Post? Really? You gonna quote Bill Mahr and John Stewert as your sources next?

 

[CTobias]

They're coming for your free speech next.

14-year-old Jared Marcum faces a year in jail after he was arrested by police in Logan County, West Virginia for refusing to remove a pro-Second Amendment t-shirt.
» 14-Year-Old Faces Year In Jail Over Pro-Gun T-Shirt Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[fishhead]

I had you pegged as an Infowars kind of guy. Headline is misleading (Aren't they always?) He was not arrested for refusing to take the shirt off. He was arrested for obstructing an officer when he refused to stop talking as the police officer was investigating the incident.

They're coming for your free speech next.

14-year-old Jared Marcum faces a year in jail after he was arrested by police in Logan County, West Virginia for refusing to remove a pro-Second Amendment t-shirt.
» 14-Year-Old Faces Year In Jail Over Pro-Gun T-Shirt Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Machine guns have been banned since the 30's.

You can legally own a fully automatic machine gun in the US, you just need to have the proper federal license. I know some who do. Nothing more fun and few things more expensive than selecting "full auto":guns:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-firearms-fanatics-gather-Arizona-desert.html

 

[Everybody's Friend]

I had you pegged as an Infowars kind of guy. Headline is misleading (Aren't they always?) He was not arrested for refusing to take the shirt off. He was arrested for obstructing an officer when he refused to stop talking as the police officer was investigating the incident.

Fishhead, you have done well here, but arguing with Tobias is like reasoning with Rain Man at the airport.

He ain't getting on the plane