• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have some issues with Tom's messaging.  But this is not really one of them.  It is true that gun grabbers lump suicide stats into murder stats to pad their numbers.  This is an indisputable fact.  I don't consider you a grabber and consider you one of the reasonable ones.  But if ya'll continue to lump suicides into the the overall so called "gun deaths" stats....  because you know damn well as much as I do that they typical layman joe public sees the term "30K gun deaths" in the headlines and he/she immediately thinks "30k gun murders".  

Its simply dishonest.  I don't know any other way to address that other than saying its a lie and it makes my "tribe" not want to trust or work with the other side.  You must see this, don't you???

 

Oops. Logic failure. You're a bad person. (Of course I won't identify the failure.)

Just prepping you for the coming responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

In many citys where it was a problem in the 90s it's most definitely not a problem now. Things have changed. Try and keep up.

And in many cities it is a problem. Things haven't changed as much as you think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chinabald said:

As long as the coloreds are killing each other in alleys you don't care? 

"The Coloreds" - please tell us you are kidding.

Based on your posted attitudes there is no other way to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

And in many cities it is a problem. Things haven't changed as much as you think. 

Many? Name them fucker.

Things have changed regionally, hell mother fucking yes. If you don't think that you are the dumb motherfucker you act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the poster child of homicides, Chicago?  Here is a discussion of how the 90s action morphed into what we have today.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/is_chicago_s_ghastly_murder_rate_the_result_of_its_1990s_anti_gang_policies.html  " The Chicago Police Department recently estimated that the number of city residents with gang ties is close to 70,000. "

Lots of other places, and acknowledges the 90s:   http://time.com/4651122/homicides-increase-cities-2016/   

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/06/gang-violence-is-on-the-rise-even-as-overall-violence-declines

The 90s efforts made an impact, for sure, but it's ON again, apparently.

Los Angeles ... an article for lefties: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/gang-violence-decline_n_6656840.html

Edited by Blue Crab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

For one example, do you think my no private sales idea gets 100% support on here or at the NRA?

I don't think it gets 100% support from you.

 

20 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If 10 hunters all have guns legally, I don't care if they loan them to each other in any random combination. They all can legally own them anyway.

Because we don't have, and can never have, a law that just regulates sales. They always regulate transfers, and for good reasons.

You're for allowing all manner of transfers among those hypothetical people. Hey, me too! That means, in grabby jargon, that we both "oppose universal background checks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have stated this before and I remain convinced it is the only way to go to solve this whole transfer, private sale, universal BCG check issue.  My reasonable proposal goes something like this:

Stop trying to regulate gunz and other tools and instead regulate people.  The PERSON should be getting the background check, not the gun.  The way to do this is for every gun owner or gun user to have to pass a thorough and comprehensive BGC once.  Fingerprints, other biometrics, etc and they must be run through ALL the criminal databases available (Federal, state, local, DOD, etc) to include domestic violence offenders, RO's, mental health disqualifiers, etc.  Of course this would take a big effort to make our databases more robust and interlinked.  But that's a discussion for another thread.

How this would work is that the person who desires to own or borrow a gun goes through this one-time check and then assuming they pass - they are issued a "Gun User in good standing card" or W ever TF you want to call it.  But it's that has your Name and picture on it with a unique ID code/user number.  You take this to the gun store, you present the card, they verify its actually you (hence the picture), they run your number through an app on a smart phone, computer or even automated call in toll free line.  Your user number is then compared to the database and if you have had no DSQ'ers added to your record since you passed your initial check - then the sale goes through.  If I go to a gun show and buy from a non-licensed dealer - that seller does the same to verify you are a person legally allowed to receive a firearm.  Again, it can be done in minutes while standing at the gun show booth or even in the walmart parking lot if you are conducting a private sale.  Put in the number on the iphone app or call the automated line and presto - the sale goes through.  

To address Tom's transfer issues, the same will be used for if he's going to "lend" a gun to one of his friends and that gun will then leave his presence for more than 24 hours or something.  I do not buy his schtick about it being a "transfer" if his wife picks up his tool in the house.  Or if I let someone shoot my gun while we are at the shooting range.  If you are physically there in the presence of your gun and can monitor its use by someone else, then a transfer has not taken place.  Again, if you "lend" someone your gun and they take it away for a while (to go hunting, etc) then you do the 5 min check on the app running the ID number through the system.  This way there is no need to go to a gunstore/dealer and pay the BS $25 "transfer" fee each time that transfer occurs.  

Where the hook comes in to make sure people actually do comply with this is that if that gun is used in a crime and it comes to light that you sold it to someone without running that BGC and have the automated email receipt to show that you ran the other person's info - then YOU are on the hook for the crime.  

I would have no problem re-issuing/updating the card like every 5-10 years or something as long as it was not too expensive or time consuming.  But the whole point of the card itself is that the extensive vetting of the person has already been done upfront.  And if they subsequently commit a felony crime, domestic abuse, get a restraining order slapped on them, become a drug or alcohol abuser, go mentally unstable, etc - then that information would get added to the database and anytime they attempted to make a purchase or transfer, the check would come back as flagged for denial or for more information before the transfer could go through.  

One last thing I would do is exempt immediate family members living in the same house from the requirement.  Husband/wife.  Parent/child.  I would not expect to have to do a transfer to my son if he wanted to take one of my rifles hunting.  My father let me take his gunz to the range or hunting whenever I wanted once I reached a certain age.  At the same time, if you do lend a firearm to an immediate family member and they hurt themselves or others with it through negligence or bad intentions, then again you are on the hook for it as well.  So think carefully before you let your mentally unstable, angry emo teenager have unfettered and unsupervised access to your gunz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit to add to the above that I would even be open to requiring some sort of basic gun handling safety course or a demonstration that you can handle a gun safely.  Not even necessarily a shooting marksmanship test, but rather can you pick up the gun safely while keeping your finger off the trigger, check and clear it properly, not point it at others, etc.  If you can at least demonstrate the 4 golden rules of gun safety, then you're GTG.  It doesn't need to involve a 4 hour safety and marksmanship course at huge cost to the prospective gun user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Edit to add to the above that I would even be open to requiring some sort of basic gun handling safety course or a demonstration that you can handle a gun safely.  Not even necessarily a shooting marksmanship test, but rather can you pick up the gun safely while keeping your finger off the trigger, check and clear it properly, not point it at others, etc.  If you can at least demonstrate the 4 golden rules of gun safety, then you're GTG.  It doesn't need to involve a 4 hour safety and marksmanship course at huge cost to the prospective gun user.

Will the applicant need to check and clear all types of weapons?  Like have a long table they go down and demonstrate clearing everything from a flint lock to an Uzi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I do not buy his schtick about it being a "transfer" if his wife picks up his tool in the house. 

Knowing the law is not "schtick." Look it up. If you are holding a gun and you didn't buy it, a transfer has occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Will the applicant need to check and clear all types of weapons?  Like have a long table they go down and demonstrate clearing everything from a flint lock to an Uzi?

No, that's only for mouthy shitheads like you.  We have a special table for your elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Knowing the law is not "schtick." Look it up. If you are holding a gun and you didn't buy it, a transfer has occurred.

Whatever, that's already addressed in my most excellent and reasonable proposal.  :P

BTW - if you don't mind, can you quote the FL law that states a transfer has occurred if you pick up a gun but didn't buy it.  I'm not doubting you, but I would just like to see the actual wording.  Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, that's only for mouthy shitheads like you.  We have a special table for your elk.

So demonstrating skill at clearing a front stuffer is good enough to get my license?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spatial Ed said:

So demonstrating skill at clearing a front stuffer is good enough to get my license?

Here we go. The problem with such licenses is that we all know the grabberz' answer: nothing is good enough. No requirement can be too burdensome because making them burdensome is the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

Here we go. The problem with such licenses is that we all know the grabberz' answer: nothing is good enough. No requirement can be too burdensome because making them burdensome is the point.

I want to avoid feel good limits on our freedom just to keep the minority happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, that's only for mouthy shitheads like you.  We have a special table for your elk.

So demonstrating skill at clearing a front stuffer is good enough to get my license?

Yes.  If you can properly pick it up, not put your finger on the trigger, not point it at someone else, and be able to correctly clear a muzzle loader - then you pass.  I would say clearing a muzzleloader would likely be THE most difficult of most guns.  Certainly harder than pulling back a slide or bolt and looking at the chamber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes.  If you can properly pick it up, not put your finger on the trigger, not point it at someone else, and be able to correctly clear a muzzle loader - then you pass.  I would say clearing a muzzleloader would likely be THE most difficult of most guns.  Certainly harder than pulling back a slide or bolt and looking at the chamber.

It’s a skill we should teach in kindergarten.  I’m liking your transition to reasonable gun control.  I might add that any applicant be instructed and tested on existing gun regulations and penalties.  Maybe a learners permit where they are given an inert gun for a while that has sensors in it to verify compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specious fred's attempt to hijack aside, I think my idea for an instant background check app for your smart phone is brilliant.  I need to find an app developer and patent that bitch.  I could be rich, I tellz ya.  But then meli and the rest of you would want to hang me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Whatever, that's already addressed in my most excellent and reasonable proposal.  :P

BTW - if you don't mind, can you quote the FL law that states a transfer has occurred if you pick up a gun but didn't buy it.  I'm not doubting you, but I would just like to see the actual wording.  Thanks

I am not a lawyer, but my limited understanding is that the definitions and applications are a bit fuzzy and inconsistent  in many cases. For instance, a prohibited person who picks up a gun even momentarily can be charged with illegal possession. At the same time, I can let someone use my silencer in my presence, and it is not considered an illegal possession. If we start closing "loopholes" on private transfer, I do believe we will need to have crystal clear definitions of what constitutes a transfer and what specific exemptions there are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Many? Name them fucker.

Things have changed regionally, hell mother fucking yes. If you don't think that you are the dumb motherfucker you act.

New Orleans, St Louis, Detroit, Flint, Chicago, Cleveland, Baltimore, Oakland, Atlanta, Philadelphia...

murder in the US is down from the 80s but it is still high in many inner cities. This is a fact. 

You need a thesaurus of curse words. You use the same ones too often in the same posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

"The Coloreds" - please tell us you are kidding.

Based on your posted attitudes there is no other way to tell.

I thought I was speaking in terms you would appreciate. 

 I inferred from your previous post that you only care about the shootings that happen between the whites. And that the murders by the MS13 and the crips don't matter as much. Since people typically murder within their own race it's easy to see that you devalue the victims of minority on minority violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some red meat for my homies 

 

Tellico Plains police say a man in his 80s accidentally discharged his gun during a Thanksgiving luncheon at the First United Methodist Church. As they cleaned up from the luncheon, the group began discussing church shootings, such as the recent shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

That’s when the man removed his handgun and began showing it to some of the men at the church.

"I carry my handgun everywhere," he said, according to police.

Before showing it to the men, he removed the magazine and cleaned the chamber. He then put the magazine back in and apparently loaded another round.

Later, however, someone who had missed the demonstration asked to see the gun. The man obliged, pulling out his gun and saying: “With this loaded indicator, I can tell that it’s not loaded.”

He then accidentally pulled the trigger, sending a bullet flying through his palm and into the left side of his wife’s abdomen.

The couple was flown to the University of Tennessee Medical Centre for treatment. They were listed as being in good condition, with non-life threatening injuries, as of Friday morning, Tellico Plains Police Chief Russ Parks told The Independent.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-accidentally-shoots-himself-wife-144300182.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Here we go. The problem with such licenses is that we all know the grabberz' answer: nothing is good enough. No requirement can be too burdensome because making them burdensome is the point.

Wrong - the point is to make them burdensome enough to drive away the impulse and frivolous type buyers.

The problem with your attitude is that pretty well ANY effective regulation is too burdensome - much better to just have collateral damage that doesn't affect you personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

I thought I was speaking in terms you would appreciate. 

 I inferred from your previous post that you only care about the shootings that happen between the whites. And that the murders by the MS13 and the crips don't matter as much. Since people typically murder within their own race it's easy to see that you devalue the victims of minority on minority violence. 

Whatever you say.

How much time did you spend "thinking" that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

lol. If you redefine "inner city" to mean whatever you want, have at it. It's funny the epicycles you need to make your worldview work. 

What's the point that you are trying to make? That the inner cities are safe places to live?  And what do you think my point is?  

Here is mine. Inner cities are still dangerous places to live. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Here is mine. Inner cities are still dangerous places to live. 

If you haven't seen the substantial change in the inner city demographics and income in the past decades, I can't help you. Here's a great example https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13069360/the-murder-capital-remembered

I can just insult and laugh at you. Which is all you are worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

If you haven't seen the substantial change in the inner city demographics and income in the past decades, I can't help you. 

I can just insult and laugh at you. Which is all you are worth.

Who is talking income? The topic is guns and crime. Murders still happen in the inner cities more then elsewhere. Deny it all you want and act like Mr Tough guy all you want, but I am pretty sure only one of us grew up in one of the Cities I mentioned earlier. And it's not you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Who is talking income? The topic is guns and crime. Murders still happen in the inner cities more then elsewhere. Deny it all you want and act like Mr Tough guy all you want, but I am pretty sure only one of us grew up in one of the Cities I mentioned earlier. And it's not you. 

dude, you are the internet tough guy here, picking a fight that wasn't yours days later to prove some point that isn't relevant to anyone but you against an internet enemy of different politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

dude, you are the internet tough guy here, picking a fight that wasn't yours days later to prove some point that isn't relevant to anyone but you against an internet enemy of different politics.

You lead with insults and then motherfuckered me a couple of times and then continue with insults but no facts or lucid opinion. But I'm the one picking a fight?  OK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't lead with insults - you can check the previous page. I quit bothering to add anything, because it's you, and you bring no cogent facts or lucid opinion to the discussion. it's just you babbling from your life story, you don't give a fuck about mine and I sure as shit don't give a fuck about yours. unless you are playing to the crowd or enjoying this feel free to fuck right off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Whatever, that's already addressed in my most excellent and reasonable proposal.  :P

BTW - if you don't mind, can you quote the FL law that states a transfer has occurred if you pick up a gun but didn't buy it.  I'm not doubting you, but I would just like to see the actual wording.  Thanks

The relevant law talks about access and "transfer of ownership of possession."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.175.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Wrong - the point is to make them burdensome enough to drive away the impulse and frivolous type buyers.

I was talking specifically about the three grabberz on this forum who want to end private firearms ownership, and their elk elsewhere.

Do you think that any requirement can be too burdensome for them? Why? The more burdensome, the closer they get to their goal.

Let's ask one:

Hey soak_ed, is there any requirement for ownership that you would consider too burdensome in your program to end private gun ownership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I read that 3x and I still don’t see where it says if your wife picks up your gun then a “transfer” has taken place. Can you please point out the wording in your link that says that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I like Jeff's license idea. I suspect it would get huge resistance along the lines of "well they will just take the list and round us all up and send us to the FEMA camps".

 

You’ll have to pry my license from my cold dead hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I read that 3x and I still don’t see where it says if your wife picks up your gun then a “transfer” has taken place. Can you please point out the wording in your link that says that?

Really?

If a minor gets access to OR is in possession of a gun, the law has been violated.

In other words, just opening the safe is access. Picking it up is possession. And in either case, a law covering transfers covers the situation.

Now extend that to the "universal" background check requirement. It would look like this:

If a minor ANY PERSON gets access to OR is in possession of a gun, the law has been violated.

My wife is a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yes.  If you can properly pick it up, not put your finger on the trigger, not point it at someone else, and be able to correctly clear a muzzle loader - then you pass.  I would say clearing a muzzleloader would likely be THE most difficult of most guns.  Certainly harder than pulling back a slide or bolt and looking at the chamber.

But muzzle loaders are extremely scary because they come with "silencers."

Quote

"Cue the .50 caliber muzzleloader, which delivers a particularly lethal .50 caliber round," the report said. "This weapon is designed with a built-in device to suppress its sound. If any other firearm were built with such a device, it would be subject to the NFA as a silencer. But since this device is designed to suppress the sound of something that is exempt from federal firearms laws, it is not considered a silencer and not subject to the NFA. In fact, it is not subject to any laws at all and can be bought online."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 12:31 PM, kent_island_sailor said:
On 11/17/2017 at 12:11 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, I do.

What makes you think .22's would be exempt? They've been assault weapons for decades in New Jersey and Florida grabbers consider them assault weapons as well.

Do you think calling .22's "assault weapons" goes too far? How about the people here who want to end civilian ownership of guns? Too far? I mean, as long as we're calling out gun extremists and all...

They might not be if only people that have never touched a gun are the only ones making rules.

Not sure which question you were answering nor what your answer means. Can you start with a yes or a no instead of a might?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Really?

If a minor gets access to OR is in possession of a gun, the law has been violated.

In other words, just opening the safe is access. Picking it up is possession. And in either case, a law covering transfers covers the situation.

Now extend that to the "universal" background check requirement. It would look like this:

If a minor ANY PERSON gets access to OR is in possession of a gun, the law has been violated.

My wife is a person.

But it doesn't say ANY PERSON.  It says minor.  Is your wife 16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2017 at 6:39 AM, Blue Crab said:

How about the poster child of homicides, Chicago?  Here is a discussion of how the 90s action morphed into what we have today.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/is_chicago_s_ghastly_murder_rate_the_result_of_its_1990s_anti_gang_policies.html  " The Chicago Police Department recently estimated that the number of city residents with gang ties is close to 70,000. "

Lots of other places, and acknowledges the 90s:   http://time.com/4651122/homicides-increase-cities-2016/   

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/06/gang-violence-is-on-the-rise-even-as-overall-violence-declines

The 90s efforts made an impact, for sure, but it's ON again, apparently.

Los Angeles ... an article for lefties: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/gang-violence-decline_n_6656840.html

An especially juicy factoid is that one of the reasons LA has diminished gang violence is thought to be gentrification of the old hoods. Rising property taxes/values are forcing the poor out. This may be what MJ is referring to but it's off the mark in this discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Not sure which question you were answering nor what your answer means. Can you start with a yes or a no instead of a might?

OK - if gun laws are left to people with no experience with guns, they might outlaw .22s or any other random thing they don't understand ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

OK - if gun laws are left to people with no experience with guns, they might outlaw .22s or any other random thing they don't understand ;)

I would be shocked if that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Really?

If a minor gets access to OR is in possession of a gun, the law has been violated.

In other words, just opening the safe is access. Picking it up is possession. And in either case, a law covering transfers covers the situation.

Now extend that to the "universal" background check requirement. It would look like this:

If a minor ANY PERSON gets access to OR is in possession of a gun, the law has been violated.

My wife is a person.

Go back and check your link.  Maybe you posted the wrong passage.  That link deals with posting of warning labels.  Maybe this is not what you meant to post.  And nowhere does it deal with ANY PERSON.  It deals specifically with minors and persons of unsound mind.  

Quote

“IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE OR LEAVE A FIREARM IN ANY PLACE WITHIN THE REACH OR EASY ACCESS OF A MINOR UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OR TO KNOWINGLY SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION OF A FIREARM TO A MINOR OR A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND.”

Assuming you haven't married a minor, is your wife of unsound mind?  Never mind, don't answer that.... that's not a fair question for any married man ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Go back and check your link.  Maybe you posted the wrong passage.  That link deals with posting of warning labels.  Maybe this is not what you meant to post.  And nowhere does it deal with ANY PERSON.  It deals specifically with minors and persons of unsound mind.  

Assuming you haven't married a minor, is your wife of unsound mind?  Never mind, don't answer that.... that's not a fair question for any married man ;)

I am not claiming that "universal" background checks are the law in FL. They are not the law anywhere. Our transfer law covers minors.

But you missed part of what I said. If ANY transfer without a BG check were illegal, not just those to minors, how would it look?
 

Quote

 

Now extend that to the "universal" background check requirement. It would look like this:

If a minor ANY PERSON gets access to OR is in possession of a gun, the law has been violated.

 

My point being the one I originally stated: these laws never cover sales, they always cover transfers. And a transfer means access and also means possession in FL. In any BG check law, there's always something like this:

Quote

SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

The reason the law is written that way is obvious. No one has ever cared about any shot fired with any of my guns. If people do care, the biggest question likely to arise will not be who owned it, but who was holding it when the shot was fired. Possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

OK - if gun laws are left to people with no experience with guns, they might outlaw .22s or any other random thing they don't understand ;)

Yes, that is what they do, but that doesn't answer my question.

When they outlaw .22's, have they gone too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, that is what they do, but that doesn't answer my question.

When they outlaw .22's, have they gone too far?

Simpleton much?

That depends on the particular .22, on the particular individual, and on the particular state where it is owned. Also on the timeframe, as these laws are evolving to follow developing occurrences. 

(Stay with us, , Florida genius boy, an eighteen shot .22 which was legal in New Mexico in 1976 may not have been legal in NJ in 1991. For another example, such a gun could be legal in WA in 2017, but illegal in NJ in 2017. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, that is what they do, but that doesn't answer my question.

When they outlaw .22's, have they gone too far?

Depends on if you mean outlawing anything that shoots .22s or some specific versions of .22 guns, like say a .22 machine gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the OP,” cause that’s where the money is”

 

(sorry to W Sutton for grabbing his falsely atttibuted quote)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I am not claiming that "universal" background checks are the law in FL. They are not the law anywhere. Our transfer law covers minors.

But you missed part of what I said. If ANY transfer without a BG check were illegal, not just those to minors, how would it look?
 

My point being the one I originally stated: these laws never cover sales, they always cover transfers. And a transfer means access and also means possession in FL. In any BG check law, there's always something like this:

The reason the law is written that way is obvious. No one has ever cared about any shot fired with any of my guns. If people do care, the biggest question likely to arise will not be who owned it, but who was holding it when the shot was fired. Possession.

I’m sorry. That’s not what your law says. It does NOT say or imply that access or touching = transfer. You are reading it wrong. It is unlawful to allow a minor access OR to sell or transfer a gun to a minor. 

The way I read it is the first part is about allowing a gun to be found by a minor (easy access). The OR a means you cannot sell or give a gun to a minor. If you hand a gun to a minor in your presence - you have neither GIVEN him or her the gun and you have not allowed “easy” access since that access had to go through you. 

So taking that to UBCs, it does NOT stand to reason that allowing an adult to touch or pick up or even shoot your gun in your presence is either “easy” access or a transfer. 

I’m sorry. I agree with you in principle on many things here. But you are reading this wrong. And your continued pedantic harping on what is clearly incorrect is not helping your cause. Just saying. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You are reading it wrong. It is unlawful to allow a minor access OR to sell or transfer a gun to a minor. 

You're still missing a couple of words. I bolded them for you. Let's try again.

Quote

SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

Quote

If you hand a gun to a minor in your presence - you have neither GIVEN him or her the gun and you have not allowed “easy” access since that access had to go through you. 

But the minor is now holding the gun. Have you transferred possession? If not, how do you define possession?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
On 11/20/2017 at 5:31 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, that is what they do, but that doesn't answer my question.

When they outlaw .22's, have they gone too far?

Depends on if you mean outlawing anything that shoots .22s or some specific versions of .22 guns, like say a .22 machine gun.

In the case of FL grabberz, they mean my old semi-auto .22 with a fixed tube magazine and my wife's Ruger 10-22.

Any machine gun is already against the law as a practical matter unless you're rich, so obviously they would not be talking about that.

I suppose I might as well try this one on you. Can you

On 9/14/2017 at 6:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

identify a .22 matching Joseph Pelleteri's illegal assault weapon in this picture?

marlins-99.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In the case of FL grabberz, they mean my old semi-auto .22 with a fixed tube magazine and my wife's Ruger 10-22.

Any machine gun is already against the law as a practical matter unless you're rich, so obviously they would not be talking about that.

I suppose I might as well try this one on you. Can you

 

Poor Tom.  No one wants to play assault .22. We need to move on to other TR stupid shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You're still missing a couple of words. I bolded them for you. Let's try again.

But the minor is now holding the gun. Have you transferred possession? If not, how do you define possession?

The Great Transfer Meltdown is a standard CATO talking point, to generate confusion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344763/turning-gun-owners-felons-dave-kopel

Whatever. but the word "transfer" is not going away: it is used extensively within gun laws. The NRA uses the term when proposing laws. The term's importance lies in the need to include legal responsibility for changes in possession which are not retail sales.  In any loose informal transfer market, the grey areas feed the possession of guns by criminals.

IMO, tighter, more effective gun laws, and sound background checks, reduce the peril of sweeping gun confiscation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You're still missing a couple of words. I bolded them for you. Let's try again.

But the minor is now holding the gun. Have you transferred possession? If not, how do you define possession?

Jesus fuk, tom!  You know damn well that "possession" in this context does NOT mean simply holding it.  Transfer or possession means more than a transitory moment where you hold it in your hands.  Stop playing your deliberately obtuse game.  It doesn't suit you.  

Let me give you an example.... if I bring my Porsche over to your house to show you and let you sit in it in the driveway while I'm standing there, you DO NOT possess it and a transfer has not taken place.  I have not transferred ownership or possession.  Even if I let you drive it around the block while I'm in the passenger seat, possession has not been transferred to you.  I still own and possess that car.  No different than if I let you shoot my rifle at the range.  

Quote

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership).

Quote

TRANSFER, cont. The act by which the owner of a thing delivers it to another person, with the intent of passing the 

rights which he has in it to the latter. 

So just because you hand a gun to a person so they can touch it and look at it doesn't mean you have either transferred it of given possession to that person.  A transfer do not occur unless you also pass the rights to that property or object.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Jesus fuk, tom!  You know damn well that "possession" in this context does NOT mean simply holding it.  Transfer or possession means more than a transitory moment where you hold it in your hands.  Stop playing your deliberately obtuse game.  It doesn't suit you.  

Let me give you an example.... if I bring my Porsche over to your house to show you and let you sit in it in the driveway while I'm standing there, you DO NOT possess it and a transfer has not taken place.  I have not transferred ownership or possession.  Even if I let you drive it around the block while I'm in the passenger seat, possession has not been transferred to you.  I still own and possess that car.  No different than if I let you shoot my rifle at the range.  

So just because you hand a gun to a person so they can touch it and look at it doesn't mean you have either transferred it of given possession to that person.  A transfer do not occur unless you also pass the rights to that property or object.  

In most cases, that is true. It is not however universally true. The devil is in the definitions and each law defines what constitutes a transfer and/or possession differently, or at least potentially differently. There is no universal legal definition of transfer or possession when it comes to firearms. I am thankful for folks like Tom who, perhaps obsessively,  focus on the definitions and fine print. Lord knows I have neither the time, energy, or patience for it. If there is something particularly troubling in a bill, I am fairly confident I will be alerted to it by someone like Tom, at which point I can look at the details of the law and make a judgement for myself. I like that, even if it comes at the expense of giving Jocal agita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal is good at what he does. I just think it's wasted and boring on thus forum where no one wants to play. I'd be surprised if all his research and typing and canoodling has modified much thinking. Please toss all that crap and yer "well regulated" straight into Boston harbor. 

The second is about resisting tyrannical oppressors. An AR type weapon is what the founders woulda if they coulda. Large magazines? Yes please. Battle packs of ammo? I'll take two more.

FEMA camps? Not in my future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Jocal is good at what he does. I just think it's wasted and boring on thus forum where no one wants to play. I'd be surprised if all his research and typing and canoodling has modified much thinking. Please toss all that crap and yer "well regulated" straight into Boston harbor. 

The second is about resisting tyrannical oppressors. An AR type weapon is what the founders woulda if they coulda. Large magazines? Yes please. Battle packs of ammo? I'll take two more.

FEMA camps? Not in my future.

Exactly.  If Space Aliens from DFG had arrived in Lexington and Concord in 1775 and offered them AR-15s to use in place of their muskets, the FF not only would have used them, but they would have given the space aliens a high five as well and probably we would be commemorating Space Alien AR-15 day for ever after.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LenP said:

In most cases, that is true. It is not however universally true. The devil is in the definitions and each law defines what constitutes a transfer and/or possession differently, or at least potentially differently. There is no universal legal definition of transfer or possession when it comes to firearms. I am thankful for folks like Tom who, perhaps obsessively,  focus on the definitions and fine print. Lord knows I have neither the time, energy, or patience for it. If there is something particularly troubling in a bill, I am fairly confident I will be alerted to it by someone like Tom, at which point I can look at the details of the law and make a judgement for myself. I like that, even if it comes at the expense of giving Jocal agita.

Tom is a shiny pebble. distracting, occupying the little people. Nothing he raves about is relevant to the goals he claims to be interested in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In the case of FL grabberz, they mean my old semi-auto .22 with a fixed tube magazine and my wife's Ruger 10-22.

Any machine gun is already against the law as a practical matter unless you're rich, so obviously they would not be talking about that.

I suppose I might as well try this one on you. Can you

 

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Overview

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common, chronic and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over.

Signs and Symptoms

People with OCD may have symptoms of obsessions, compulsions, or both. These symptoms can interfere with all aspects of life, such as work, school, and personal relationships.

Obsessions are repeated thoughts, urges, or mental images that cause anxiety. Common symptoms include:

  • Fear of germs or contamination
  • Unwanted forbidden or taboo thoughts involving sex, religion, and harm
  • Aggressive thoughts towards others or self
  • Having things symmetrical or in a perfect order

Compulsions are repetitive behaviors that a person with OCD feels the urge to do in response to an obsessive thought. Common compulsions include:

  • Excessive cleaning and/or handwashing
  • Ordering and arranging things in a particular, precise way
  • Repeatedly checking on things, such as repeatedly checking to see if the door is locked or that the oven is off
  • Compulsive counting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

Jesus fuk, tom!  You know damn well that "possession" in this context does NOT mean simply holding it.  Transfer or possession means more than a transitory moment where you hold it in your hands.  Stop playing your deliberately obtuse game.  It doesn't suit you.  

Let me give you an example.... if I bring my Porsche over to your house to show you and let you sit in it in the driveway while I'm standing there, you DO NOT possess it and a transfer has not taken place.  I have not transferred ownership or possession.  Even if I let you drive it around the block while I'm in the passenger seat, possession has not been transferred to you.  I still own and possess that car.  No different than if I let you shoot my rifle at the range.  

Quote

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership).

The definition doesn't support your point.

Look closely at the end: possession doesn't always imply ownership.

Possession does mean simply holding it. That's why exemptions are written in for things like use at a range. That's simply holding and firing a gun but with no intention to transfer ownership.

Such exemptions would not be necessary if handing a gun to someone wasn't a transfer. But they are necessary and are included in laws because it is, whether or not you understand it. And whether or not Sloopy thinks this makes me bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it makes you bad, I think it makes you an OCD nutcase.

Your crazy level of nitpicking about all aspects of weaponry makes Bent sound like he doesn't give much of a shit about the specifics of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I don't think it makes you bad, I think it makes you an OCD nutcase.

Your crazy level of nitpicking about all aspects of weaponry makes Bent sound like he doesn't give much of a shit about the specifics of anything.

697.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Your crazy level of nitpicking about all aspects of weaponry makes Bent sound like he doesn't give much of a shit about the specifics of anything.

I don't apologize for knowing why I object to something when I object to something. Relying on my assumptions for my knowledge base and opposing things without knowing actual reasons isn't my thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't apologize for knowing why I object to something when I object to something. Relying on my assumptions for my knowledge base and opposing things without knowing actual reasons isn't my thing.

Your "thing" involves quite a bit of dissembling and quite a bit of disinformation. You lack direct presentations of your brand, you avoid key areas of discussion, you introduce falsehoods, and fail to answer key questions. Your program offers miscellaneous weell-meaning unicornish ideals, supporting plenty of personal violence.

  • You are not honest enough to discuss the measurable violent crime increases (around 15%) in 14 new right-to-carry states.
  • You are not honest enough to discuss the lack of individual gun rights among the colonists.
  • You are not honest enough to weigh in on the CATO scholarship presented in Heller.  

Then there's the daily nonsense factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 5:21 AM, Bent Sailor said:
On 11/22/2017 at 5:10 AM, SloopJonB said:

I don't think it makes you bad, I think it makes you an OCD nutcase.

Your crazy level of nitpicking about all aspects of weaponry makes Bent sound like he doesn't give much of a shit about the specifics of anything.

697.jpg

Hey dumbass, don't pat yourself on the back too hard just yet.  Sloops was NOT being complimentary about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey dumbass, don't pat yourself on the back too hard just yet.  Sloops was NOT being complimentary about you.

You work that out all on your own did you? Clever boy :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 5:49 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 11/20/2017 at 9:49 AM, kent_island_sailor said:
On 11/20/2017 at 5:31 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, that is what they do, but that doesn't answer my question.

When they outlaw .22's, have they gone too far?

Depends on if you mean outlawing anything that shoots .22s or some specific versions of .22 guns, like say a .22 machine gun.

In the case of FL grabberz, they mean my old semi-auto .22 with a fixed tube magazine and my wife's Ruger 10-22.

So, now that you know what I mean, can you answer the question? Is banning my dad's old .22 with fixed magazine because it's a battlefield assault weapon going too far or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Can't do it, huh?

One day it'll actually make it through to you that not engaging in your bullshit is not the same as being unable to. 

I won't  be holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

One day it'll actually make it through to you that not engaging in your bullshit is not the same as being unable to. 

I won't  be holding my breath.

What part of what I wrote is bullshit?

You can't point to any.

FL grabberz really think my dad's old .22 is a battlefield weapon that should be banned and the text of the law saying so is right here.

That's why you attack the messenger instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 10:20 AM, Blue Crab said:

Tom's point is perhaps too subtle for even gun toten shoot first mofos like me, and I have a black 10-22. Please move on TR.

If you're uninterested in whether your gun should be banned, why not just hand it over to the government today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

What part of what I wrote is bullshit?

You can't point to any.

FL grabberz really think my dad's old .22 is a battlefield weapon that should be banned and the text of the law saying so is right here.

That's why you attack the messenger instead.

Still saying "can't" when all you've got is "currently won't". I imagine if both sides of the gun debate hadn't got sick of your shit, that might have even passed the sniff test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

One day it'll actually make it through to you that not engaging in your bullshit is not the same as being unable to. 

I won't  be holding my breath.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 4:26 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 11/21/2017 at 10:20 AM, Blue Crab said:

Tom's point is perhaps too subtle for even gun toten shoot first mofos like me, and I have a black 10-22. Please move on TR.

If you're uninterested in whether your gun should be banned, why not just hand it over to the government today?

And if you're uninterested in whether your gun should be banned, why start a thread asking about it and then get upset when your question is answered?

My focus on gunz comes from the fact that I don't want my dad's old .22 nor my wife's Ruger 10-22 banned and confiscated. That's all there is to it. I'm puzzled that you don't care whether your gun is banned and confiscated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And if you're uninterested in whether your gun should be banned, why start a thread asking about it and then get upset when your question is answered?

My focus on gunz comes from the fact that I don't want my dad's old .22 nor my wife's Ruger 10-22 banned and confiscated. That's all there is to it. I'm puzzled that you don't care whether your gun is banned and confiscated.

Heh. Even a casual reading of the OP should indicate that the focus of the thread wasn't, I say again, was NOT about gunz. As it turned out, nobody wanted to hear that so it became a gunz thread.

Regardless, your constant repetition of the same obvious question and answer is tiresome and seriously undermines your built-up credibility from the past, such as it was.

I really wish there was a way to track IGNOREs because I'd bet you've earned a dozen or so in the last month and as Jocal notes, you've been on this same nonsense for a year or so. 

I say this with all DUE respect: Please STFU and HTFU. And please stop concerning yerself with my tactical takedown black and ss AR with the bigass scope and 30 round mags. 

Squirrels shutter when ya mention my name. I double tap them ... because I can. No bump stock needed. It's not my first weapon donchakno.

No shit, some of you younger guys think you've got all this figured out by shooting targets and watermelons in yer backyards and yak yak yakkin about it. And putting your stupid vids on UTube. Is this a great country or what?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now