A question and a challenge.

The issue isn't individual rights, it's how those rights can be regulated. 1st Amendment - can't yell fire, etc. We already know there are regulations on the 2nd. So I don't know why you keep yelling "individual rights" when that wasn't the focus. Originally Posted by papadee

The Bill of Rights are indeed referencing INDIVIDUAL rights, and, FYI, there's already a score or more laws regulating the use of a weapon for killing people in a crowded theater. But you loons on the left want to violate the 2nd and 4th Amendment rights of a great number of law abiding American citizens and superciliously pretend you're accomplishing something to assuage your petty egos.

no law exists on gun control and you get to write the ultimate legislative package. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

REMEMBER: This was the premise of the challenge. The question of "well regulated" is a good one.

You cannot violate constitutional protections. You cannot deprive people of their property if lawfully owned. You cannot deprive people of any other right without due process.
That is your mission. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

the real issue is sales between private citizens. forcing private citizens to do a background check i don't think will pass constitutional muster based on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself. you seem to want to ban sales between private citizens or if not require background checks.


Based on the Constitution and 2nd amendment, as interpreted by a Liberal Justice, the law from the very writing would mean, to MY mind's eye, the background checks are part of being "well regulated". Private or commercial gain. FROM THE BEGINNING.

As per the mission impossible. Possibly eliminating the felons and unstable citizens from owning firearms. To a degree of course. You can't predict when someone will snap.
Hindsight is 20/20. No law exists except the Constitution and ammendments.

How do you regulate a private sale? You just make it illegal not to register the new owner before the sale. I think of it like a vehicle. It's just easier to hide the exchange. And it's up to the seller to see it's registered before, not after the sale.

in case you didn't know, all dealers pay a fee to setup at gun shows and private citizens are charged admission. since this is a paid event, you could force private sellers using this event to sell guns to other privates citizens to use the dealers on site to do a background check.


i don't advertise to sell guns on Craigslist or any other method. i don't want to take the risk of someone trying to rob me over it or knowing where i live and that i likely have other firearms along with other valuables that they will come back later and rob my house.

there is also the possibility you are selling to a person who is not legally allowed to own a gun. there is no way to verify that at present. could you insist the buyer meet you at or go to a gun dealer and have them verify the buyer? yeah, and they would likely do it for a small fee. some dealers might even do it for free as a courtesy. but a buyer can refuse that. and it doesn't mean they can't own a firearm.


when i want to sell a gun i own, i value it online and then take it to a gun shop. they'll give you a reasonable price. even pawn shops will buy guns but you'll get a better price from a gun shop. several times i have wanted to replace one gun for another. i find a gun shop that has what i want new or used and i take my current gun there and trade it out. sometimes i even make a few bucks. or pay the difference.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Paragraph structure could be a lot better and more lucid. I was editing quickly and on the fly.

REMEMBER: This was the premise of the challenge. The question of "well regulated" is a good one. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The notion that the 2nd Amendment states that an individual must belong to the militia to possess a weapon is ass backwards and is therefore emphatically false. The 2nd Amendment states that the militia is dependent on the citizen who already -- as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT -- possesses a weapon; not vice versa.

REMEMBER: This was the premise of the challenge. The question of "well regulated" is a good one.

then you agree no amount of background checks can prevent such incidents and in fact would infringe on constitutional rights!



Paragraph structure could be a lot better and more lucid. I was editing quickly and on the fly. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

i'd support regulating private sales .. under two conditions .. the left abandon any attempt at banning so-called "assault-style weapons" and they reaffirm the 2nd amendment as a fundamental right of lawful citizens to own firearms.



thank you valued grammar nazi .. but i'm not Yssup Rider so don't sweat it

We had an 'Assault Weapon Ban'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

"Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity and firearm homicides while there is tentative evidence that they decrease the frequency of mass shootings" Originally Posted by RetiredSubmariner

Beto was talking about the AK-47 and AK-15. Currently it's legal to own them. Didn't the guy at Las Vegas use an AK-47?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/o-rourke-...162932105.html

[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1061750402]since no one owns an assault rifle, problem solved! when will you libtards understand that only full-auto weapons are assault rifles? only police forces and the military have them.

Beto was talking about the AK-47 and the AK-15. The Yahoo article considered these two weapons to be assault weapons. You can take that up with them. Beto would have these two weapons sold back to the government. Considering one of these weapons is commonly used in mass shootings, I think it's good idea. So, since people can own these two types, THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/o-rourke-...162932105.html

I already did the research. Jefferson carried his own abridged copy of the Christian Bible. Jefferson used his influence to have certain louts in the press subjected to legal actions for lying. Everyone knows you're a left wing loon; hence, your feeble lies are being ignored.


You'd be the one not understanding what was wrote because you are being willfully ignorant of the Founding Father's intent and you're ignoring that the whole of the first nine amendments were specifically addressing INDIVIDUAL rights -- not government prerogatives.


The Supreme Court already reexamined the Founding Father's intent and ruled that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is their anyone left of you that you agree with on anything? Papa had valid points that you refuted with nonsense. I have a Red Flag alert on you for being a loon. Are you still in Pittsburg at Lustys Pajama Party? When you get back please pick up Lollipop Hankering. She's at Lex Lovers crib. They were studying an Ebonics course late last night

Very sad , sorry for the families , But here we go again with many failures FBBI, Locals, This nut job called the fbbi and pointed a gun at a neighbor and Nothing ( you would think that when a mental case calls the fbbi they would just may-be SEND some one to talk to this nut,,,
And of course the LSM is blaming everything everyone but the nut , this is the main reason nothing gets done.

Very sad , sorry for the families , But here we go again with many failures FBBI, Locals, This nut job called the fbbi and pointed a gun at a neighbor and Nothing ( you would think that when a mental case calls the fbbi they would just may-be SEND some one to talk to this nut,,,
And of course the LSM is blaming everything everyone but the nut , this is the main reason nothing gets done. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Rex you are a perpetrator of fake news. I know you are a Russian sympathizer. Give me one example of the Media blaming everyone but the shooter. People like you are the reason this country is so divided. Go back to wherever the fuck you came from. We don't want your kind here. And take Moscow Mitch with you

Shoal Creek already has your number for being a left wing fucking retard. You'll fit right in - don't worry.

Is their anyone left of you that you agree with on anything? Papa had valid points that you refuted with nonsense. I have a Red Flag alert on you for being a loon. Are you still in Pittsburg at Lustys Pajama Party? When you get back please pick up Lollipop Hankering. She's at Lex Lovers crib. They were studying an Ebonics course late last night Originally Posted by themystic

[QUOTE=adav8s28;1061751493][QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1061750402]since no one owns an assault rifle, problem solved! when will you libtards understand that only full-auto weapons are assault rifles? only police forces and the military have them.

Beto was talking about the AK-47 and the AK-15. The Yahoo article considered these two weapons to be assault weapons. You can take that up with them. Beto would have these two weapons sold back to the government. Considering one of these weapons is commonly used in mass shootings, I think it's good idea. So, since people can own these two types, THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/o-rourke-...162932105.html[/QUOT

Both weapons you cited were semi automatic and not "weapons of war" The term assault weapon is a invention of the left as anything from a rock to a meat Cleaver and a machine gun could be an assault weapon. Actually neither weapon is commonly used in mass shootings. The handgun is more common. The media makes a bigger story out of the other two. Like the Las Vegas shooting...he has many more weapons but we only hear about a couple. The VA tech shooter killed 38 people with handguns. Major Hassan, handguns again.

You are correct, TWK
Banning Ak-47 and Ar-15 is just a pretext to get the precedent for all weapons banned.

And ony criminals will have them.

Full auto weapons can be owned in the US per the NFA of 1986. never been a crime in the US using a legally transferred NFA weapon.

DPST's don't care - and care less that their gun ban prescription would be completely ineffective at

controlling gun violence by the tiny minority, It is just a pretext for their objective to disarm and thus control the population for Socialism.
Based on false pretexts.

They do not care about facts and protecting the population - only Control!!

Is their anyone left of you that you agree with on anything? Papa had valid points that you refuted with nonsense. I have a Red Flag alert on you for being a loon. Are you still in Pittsburg at Lustys Pajama Party? When you get back please pick up Lollipop Hankering. She's at Lex Lovers crib. They were studying an Ebonics course late last night Originally Posted by themystic

Everyone knows your choice in "red flags", Moscow Mystic, and you're a fucking lollipop sucking loon for believing such.

[QUOTE=adav8s28;1061751493]

since no one owns an assault rifle, problem solved! when will you libtards understand that only full-auto weapons are assault rifles? only police forces and the military have them.

Beto was talking about the AK-47 and the AK-15. The Yahoo article considered these two weapons to be assault weapons. You can take that up with them. Beto would have these two weapons sold back to the government. Considering one of these weapons is commonly used in mass shootings, I think it's good idea. So, since people can own these two types, THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOLVED.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/o-rourke-...162932105.html Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Beto will be president of Venezuela before he will be president of the US.


BAHHAHHAHAHHAAAAAA

Shoal Creek already has your number for being a left wing fucking retard. You'll fit right in - don't worry. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

The Queen of Hate. Right on time. Moscow Ellen hope you find a new manager soon. I just couldn’t keep trying to promote you. There isn’t much on a market for hateful washed up hookers. Be well. Bless your Heart. I’m praying for you