The anti's have a new weapon

... Start at the beginning...

... and tag the White House first !

Whats up with the app? I tried using it for the last couple of days to flag all the big scary guns i see running around shooting at innocent people. It seems that they may have caved to public demand and disabled it?

The maker of the app updated their page and the app. Read this:

http://gungeomarker.org/2013/07/13/what-is-the-gun-geo-marker/

JustaShooter said:

The maker of the app updated their page and the app. Read this:

http://gungeomarker.org/2013/07/13/what-is-the-gun-geo-marker/

Click to expand...

Guy says he's a gun owner .. well well well, isn't that special.

I berate politicians who say this ..

This guy will know what, if any, gun I own when I want him to know...

He's also apparently low on the IQ scale as he can't see the contradiction in his own words.

"Secondly, the App was a honeypot. As a gun owner myself, I am all too aware of a smaller component of the community that sees any attempt at improving gun safety as an affront to their second amendment rights. Reasonable regulations that do not interfere with anyone’s second amendment rights – such as universal background checks and trigger locks when guns are unattended in the presence of children – are needed to help abate the gun violence epidemic in this country. "

Seems rather stupid (stupid not ignorant) to say background checks won't interfere with ANYONE's second amendment rights when the entire reason to conduct a check is to deny certain people from exercising the right.

And I can tell you from personal experience that folks are denied their Right for no good reason due to the background checks.

A background check that is passed is a violation of the Right because it robs honest citizens of their time when they should be under no obligation to prove that they are worthy. That should be the assumption until the state proves otherwise.

A background check that is delayed, but that ultimately proceeds, also violates the Right. It, too, robs the person of his time, but also causes unnecessary anguish.

A background check that is unjustly denied (and I know of at least two) are gross violations of the Right.

All of those violations are not justified by the denial of sales to prohibited persons. The law already prohibits their possession. It should not be up to me to ensure that they are not breaking the law, thereby inconveniencing the hell out of all my other customers. It is the individual responsibility of the people to follow the law. They should be held responsible when they don't--after they don't. Systems that inconvenience all, including the law-abiding, should not be put in place to try to stop crime before it happens, to make breaking the law harder. They also have the unintended consequences of making the law harder to follow and of making accidentally breaking it easier.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

There is no need for background checks ... people who cannot own know who they are 99.999% of the time. And those that don't usually have some trivial issue that stupid lawmakers think is a good enough reason to disallow them to own (but can freely walk amongst us). And the very small # of lunatics but most of them are democrats who don't want to own anyways.

And this is not even considering the argument concerning felons & guns...

I don't think background checks have made any difference in gun crime. Those that are prohibited from legally getting guns just get them illegally. Background checks just lower the number of legal citizens the want to purchase a firearm.

Soylent Green is made out of people.

kurt555gs said:

Soylent Green is made out of people.

Click to expand...

And Yummy people always forget the yummy part

Hmmm. I must have missed how these anti-gunners get information on who has what kind of gun. Is a Hawken flintlock more threatening than an AK-47? Does the guy that lives on the other side of town have one or the other? How would the anti-gunners know?

It's already been said before, this reeks of conspiracy to commit, stalking and reckless endangerment.

kurt555gs said:

Soylent Green is made out of people.

Click to expand...

Cool! Can I have the recipe?

Here's an interesting thing (to me anyway) on background checks and buying handguns.

If you're under 21 you can't buy a handgun from an FFL where you would be required to undergo an (unconstitutional) background check. However, if you're in a state such as Oregon where private party transfers are legal, an 18 year old can buy a handgun privately.

Now isn't that the epitome of stupid? Why not change the law to allow those 18-20 year olds buy from an FFL (if they desire) and at least get some of them "backgrounded"? As it is, the law creates a situation where unchecked young people are getting handguns.

Lest you think I support background checks (at all), I don't. I'm just trying to point out the idiocy of the current laws.

Can anyone cite a gun law that is not idiotic?

Gun laws are designed to prevent crime, not to deal with its commission. The only preventive nature of a law should be its deterrence value. Laws that restrict what should otherwise be lawful to prevent the commission of some other act (one which should be a crime) serve only to hamstring the law-abiding. The criminal will not hesitate to break the prevention law on his way to committing a real crime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Can anyone cite a gun law that is not idiotic?

Gun laws are designed to prevent crime, not to deal with its commission. The only preventive nature of a law should be its deterrence value. Laws that restrict what should otherwise be lawful to prevent the commission of some other act (one which should be a crime) serve only to hamstring the law-abiding. The criminal will not hesitate to break the prevention law on his way to committing a real crime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

The 2A........

Good one.

Smartass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

We-the-People said:

Here's an interesting thing (to me anyway) on background checks and buying handguns.

If you're under 21 you can't buy a handgun from an FFL where you would be required to undergo an (unconstitutional) background check. However, if you're in a state such as Oregon where private party transfers are legal, an 18 year old can buy a handgun privately.

Click to expand...

<edited to remove inapplicable federal statute dealing with minors>

It may be that state laws include premptions for those under 21, I'd be sure to check the laws of my state before doing so.

JustaShooter said:

I think you'll find that federal law prohibts private transfers of handguns to minors. From another post here on OCDO:

Click to expand...

An 18 year old is not a minor (juvenile). Perfectly legal is most states for an 18 year-old to purchase a handgun in a private sale.

notalawyer said:

An 18 year old is not a minor (juvenile). Perfectly legal is most states for an 18 year-old to purchase a handgun in a private sale.

Click to expand...

And of course you are correct - I missed that in the post I responded to (and have now edited the post to correct my oversight).

eye95 said:

Good one.

Smartass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

You got me.....

JustaShooter said:

<edited to remove inapplicable federal statute dealing with minors>

It may be that state laws include premptions for those under 21, I'd be sure to check the laws of my state before doing so.

Click to expand...

You have a LOT of reading and remembering in front of you. Enjoy it.

KYGlockster said:

You have a LOT of reading and remembering in front of you. Enjoy it.

Click to expand...

I'm sure I have no idea what you mean - I wasn't suggesting that I would research the handgun laws of all 57 of these United States and how they apply to minors and report back...