If Machine Guns are illegal

Not history teachers, however.

 

Not everybody thoight sandy hook was fake.

 

We don't want certain classes of people to have firearms--felons, gang members, the senile and mentally ill, children, and those guilty of misdemeanour assault. With a federal firearms permit, we can check them in advance. We can maintain a database that allows us to get away from waiting periods for transferring arms between permit holders and expensive gun registration.

I said a free permit should be issued automatically upon application subject to a future background check and age limits (old folks have to prove they're not senile). That's no different that subjecting people to repeated background checks when they acquire weapons.

I think you're wrong on both counts, but generally mistaken in taking a hard line against reasonable reforms that might defuse the anger against elected officials sympathetic to gun rights.

Illustrating nicely what happens when you adopt a "no compromise" position.

 

No one has taken your guns away. If you think you've been done wrong, you should try to win the next election and use the courts to assert your rights.

 

Once again, you deliberately misconstrue my remarks.

Federal firearms permits exist. Federal law can and does deny firearms to some people, regardless of what states say. States can deny firearms to some people who can have them under federal law. (I don't think they could deny firearms to soldiers or FBI agents, so "some" is operative.)

 

He'll keep trying to register guns, ban semi-automatic long guns, and undertake all sorts of ineffective measures because he can't do the one thing he seems to want to do and that's repeal the 2nd.

3-D printing is getting better all the time. It's a game changer.

 

It's already illegal for them to be in possession. Waiting periods are by state only, subject to police powers. They are not federal.

You want to require a permit to keep and bear arms, that makes it a privilege not a right. Full stop.

That's nice dear. I've got a law license. What've you got teach?

It's Illinois which is run by Chicago liberals. This is what happens when you compromise with them.

 

Permits for carry? Do tell chief, do tell.

 

What does the structure of the banking system have to do with corporations controlling society?

Yeah, sure--they'll be smarter than people.

I gave you the abridged version. The young people I taught for years don't relate to the social values the GOP is pushing. If Republicans want a chance at them, the party will have to modernize its social policies.

Okay.

If nothing else, instead of passing the stupid laws they have that make no exception, they could have allowed trans people to choose a facility and apply for a waiver.

That puts you at odds with a lot of older people.

Another difference with most old goats.

I assume want to at least look into the climate change issue.

Young people save more money than earlier generations, so they respond favorably to thoughts of a hand up instead of a hand out. That's something the GOP can trade on, but Republicans are even bigger sell outs to big business and special interests than Democrats.

 

It would help deal with loose ends--people who are mentally ill or senile--by spotting some of them earlier. It would focus information gathering in one place. It could provide more assurance to the public that people openly carrying weapons are permit holders.

For gun owners, it would encourage states to accept the national permit and get away from setting their own gun laws. Gun owners would likely find it easier to get around from state to state.

 

States would in many cases do away with waiting periods.

Earth to @Reality: you already require a permit in many states to take them outside your door.

You're tone deaf politically.

 

They can do that already and their problems are not my problems in Texas for me to trade my rights for. I encourage them to pass better laws and free themselves. .

And until 1967 me and my fiance would be in jail for having an interracial relationship.
Was there a point you had?

I am immune to your pitch, yes.

 

How? Explain such, do not simply claim it. As it is currently presented it does not make any sense.

Again, how? How would such a program assure the public that a person is carrying a firearm legally rather than illegally? There is a significant portion of the united states population that believes the carrying of firearms by anyone other than law enforcement is illegal. This portion will continue to call in countless reports each year whenever a firearm is seen in the possession of a private individual, and law enforcement will still have to investigate each and every call, meaning that nothing of significance will have changed.

Once again, how? How would a change in federal policy work to assure individual states that they need not implement their own firearm-related restrictions and policies?

 

But they aren't going to get rid of background checks without the permit.

A national firearms permit solves so many problems for states I think even a voluntary national permit might replace background checks. Gun sales involving someone without a permit would be then be subject to delays, greater scrutiny, and the usual costs.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/03/how-much-does-it-cost-own-firearm-state-state-breakdown​

You're opposed to a free national firearms license that potentially does away with $tate firearms license$ and make it easier to transfer firearms between people?

I wonder how many people would follow you to the hills over a national firearms permit.

 

I have pointed out we already have one.
You choose to ignore it.

 

Take the concern around senility. We could require everone of a certain age take a short exam that establishes they're not senile before a permit is issued. At this point, in many states police have no idea whether or not an elderly gentleman carrying a weapon is of sound mind.

A gangbanger, for example, would presumably be less likely to display a firearm if they were unable to obtain a permit. If you're in a restaurant with several young men carrying firearms, you might feel more assured they're "good guys" and see people carrying as some assurance of your safety, particularly if you're not carrying yourself.

Pols would rather not be responsible for controlling firearms and a positive reaction to a national permit program would encourage them in at least some states to get away from state controls.

 

They are committing a felon merely by possessing one now. Why would they risk displaying it where someone would take notice and call the cops?

How often is anyone in a restaurant with several young men displaying firearms?

 

"Have one" what?

 

In some states, not others.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Legislation/Weapons​

I think it depends on where you live.

 

Most "history" teachers today are teaching a political narrative and not real history. Sorry, but that's the fact of it.

 

Illinois is working on passing a law that would enable authorities to confiscate legally held arms from people simply by moving the goal posts on their age. Confiscation has happened in this nation already.

I have no interest in being a politician (I actually have ethics and morals, so such a position is incompatible with me retaining my self respect) and the courts are corrupted.

 

Imagine the USA demanding you first obtain a national permit to speak!!!!! That is the same thing as a national permit to own a firearm.

We have a national permit and call it the 2nd amendment.

 

It took control of the purse strings away from the people and gave it to the financiers, who have done nothing but manipulate the system to their own benefit. Every political effort to keep control of the financial power of our nation out of the hands of the bankers has resulted in the bankers creating recessions and depressions to blackmail the government into giving them what they want. Now, through taxation, interest rates, and a laundry list of other methods, they have turned most Americans into wage slaves with debts so high and incomes so low they'll never be able to free themselves from being beholden to the money brokers.

They're not there yet, and I suspect I'll be dead and buries long before we see ED-209s on every street corner.

Well, I see merits in some social value systems over others, and there are things of the previous generations that, I grant you, have no place in today's society. That said, there are values intrinsic to the older generations that the new generations would do well to try exploring. For the most part I find the young people of today to be detestable and self-obsessed little creatures that bring zero value to the world. As far as partisan allegiances go, I am utterly disinterested in them. There are things both mainstream parties do that are reprehensible in the extreme, and frankly I think they both have committed crimes against this country sufficient to have them dissolved, but I also recognize that'll never happen; they have too much of a stranglehold on the political system.

"Trans" people certainly deserve compassion and consideration, and we need to seriously examine how to properly integrate them into society so they can be treated respectfully. But, they are pushing for too much IMHO. Sorry, but I shouldn't face criminal charges if I use a pronoun that offends them, and whether they like it or not there are only two scientifically recognized genders. From where I stand I'll do my best to treat them respectfully, but if they try to shove their agenda down my throat and think they can bully me into accepting some of the things they advocate, they're in for a surprise.

...And it puts me in stride with a lot of others. I know older people with beliefs and values I find disgusting... and I know older people I look up to and aspire to be like. It is simplistic to try to put all the blame for the ills of society on one generation over another, and I try to remind myself of that every time I see some self-righteous teenage punk doing something stupid; but I do see a lot of effort being put into trying to bury, belittle, and denigrate the best of the values of our elders in today's world.

Sorry, but again I see this is as simplistic, and also completely contradictory to my experiences regarding who does a better job of planning for the future. "Oh, it's all the Republicans' fault!" "No, it's all the Democrats' fault!" No, they both have contributed to the undermining of our nation, and the sooner the people figure that out the sooner we can start holding them to account for their misdeeds.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Pray tell who is going to pay for these proposed exams? What will the basis be for determining what does and does not amount to senility, in order to prevent it from being abused by individuals intent on pushing their own political narrative at any cost? How often will the exams be carried out as to ensure someone does not develop senility after passing a screening?

Why does such matter?

If they already have disqualifying felony convictions on their record, they cannot legally acquire firearms under any circumstances. In such a case, it does not matter if a permit is required or not. What exactly will law enforcement and the courts do, charge them with illegal possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and possession of a firearm without a permit?

Such does not answer the question that was presented. It does nothing but raise more questions. Members of the public will have no authority to demand to see for themselves whether or not someone who is carrying a firearm is in possession of such a permit, only law enforcement will be able to do such. Meaning that anytime someone is seen carrying a firearm, law enforcement will need to be called out to investigate the matter and determine if the possession is legal or illegal. Knowing that the call pertains to the possible illegal possession of a firearm, it may warrant a SWAT-type approach with law enforcement officers heavily armed and armored for their own safety, as is already being witnessed in various locations of the united states. Tension will run high, many will be killed by law enforcement officers who are quick to react without thinking, more lawsuits will follow as a result.

Then there is the fact that a requirement for a permit will invariably lead to counterfeit permits being printed up, just as is done with other forms of identification and credentials, which will force law enforcement to determine whether or not the permit is indeed genuine. There will also be permits issued to those who cannot legally possess them because of bribes being taken, just as has been witnessed in the city of New York by the FBI.

None of the above does anything to address the fact that, even if someone does indeed possess a valid permit, it will do nothing to prevent them from engaging in a mass killing, or other form of violence against others, nor will it assure the public that those who hold a permit are not a potential threat.

Nothing will come to pass except making the jobs of law enforcement officers even more stressful and difficult than they already are.

Such is the claim being presented by yourself, but no evidence that would prove such would be the case has actually been presented. Too many states in the united states are quite willing to set their own firearm-related restrictions, and ensure that they are the strictest that can be maintained. The states of California and New York are currently involved in what looks like a back and forth competition to see which state can be known for having the strictest firearm-related restrictions in the entire nation, with neither one wanting to be classified as second best. Even if a federal permit was required for all firearms ownership, such would still not be good enough for them, or numerous other states.