But, of course, the solution is to require any purchase of two guns by a legal American citizen to be reported to various agencies and to have said citizen visited that day by the goon squad.
The U.S. government authorizes guns to be sold to the Mexican military; those guns--surprise!--end up in the hands of the drug cartel, and it's the fault of legal American gun owners. Would someone explain how that is good reasoning? I'm sure that Dog Gone will volunteer.
But, of course, the solution is to require any purchase of two guns by a legal American citizen to be reported to various agencies and to have said citizen visited that day by the goon squad.
Oh, please - do give us an example where here in the U.S. we have goon squads? I would assert that Greg is more likely to be visited by the Goonies than a government goon squad.
Yes, we do provide arms to a variety of governments that are unable to secure those weapons adequately.
Mexico, with their drug problems. Iraq and other combat zones where they ended up in the hands of our enemies.
The problem is that we do not advance our cause either by NOT providing guns to those governments that are our allies in attempting to end the insurgents and end the cartels. We need better means to ensure that our allies are able to secure the weapons we provide, but only those governments have jurisdiction in those countries. It is not within our power, nor desirable to send our military or our police to do the securing of those weapons.
If you have a better idea that doesn't amount to cutting off one's nose to spite their face, do share it.
NOT arming those who do risk their lives against the cartels or against insurgents is NOT a better idea.
The problem is that Greg sees these as two separate issues, which they aren't really.
We are talking about the various ways that criminals get their guns, which is more than just one.
In order to effectively stop guns from getting to criminals, one must plug all the holes. That means from gun shows and from Foreign Military Sales.
Also, Greg, you are aware that Heller-McDonald has held that registration and background checks do not "infringe" upon the new right to keep and bear arms it created.
Opposition to the reporting requirement of multiple sales is one of the main symptoms of the mental illness called gun-rights fanaticism. Greg loves to focus on the law-abiding buyer who will be so inconvenienced by the police check but he forgets all the professional straw buyers that will be put out of business.
And neither is such nonsense required. Let's see you try to get it passed.
Dog Gone,
Do you recall Mikeb's response to me when I said that I'd bought two rifles in one day? He said that it would be reasonable for an ATF agent to come visit me to see the rifles and check the paperwork. I call that a goon squad visit.
You want a better solution? Leave the Mexicans to solve their own internal matters. The Mexican government is fundamentally corrupt, and working with it only dirties us. If the Mexicans wanted to stop the flow of drugs going north and the supposed guns coming south, they could seal their border.
I did see an article a while ago indicating that Mexican citizens are pushing for a relaxation of Mexico's strict gun laws so that they can defend themselves legally.
Greg, if you are trying to persuade me that you are a law abiding citizen who should be able to own a firearm, you are failing miserably.
As for getting restriction passed, that is one of the glories of Heller-McDonald.
No longer can a politician claim that registration, background checks and other firearms restrictions violate the Second Amendment. Now, their concern is about public safety.
And, Greg, guns in the hands of people such as yourself are a danger to society.
If you shoot yourself in the foot as much literally, as you here figuratively--you really should not own firearms!
The same gun manufacturers who rely on the NRA to push their domestic sales, rely on their lobbyists in D.C. to get them permission if not direct orders from the gummint for export.
The easiest and cheapest way to make the Mexican cartels go away is to legalize or decriminalize drugs. Never gonna happen, afaia.
I don't have to persuade you of one thing. You're not in charge. We can argue here all we want, but the laws are being written and the decisions made that go in the direction that I want.
Democommie,
It's a day to be agreeable, it seems, since I agree with your drug plan entirely.
No, Greg, you have to persuade me that you are not a complete and total idiot.
You claim that the law is going your way--perhaps for the time being.
But how much longer will that last before the American public gets pissed off that idiots like you are able to own guns.
How many people need to be killed under the right to kill laws where the prosecutor is left without a case--when it is obvious there was a miscarriage of justice.
Eventually people in the US will get pissed off. I am amazed it hasn't happened yet--How many Columbines, Jonesboros, VTechs and all need to happen before people say "enough".
At least, Heller-McDonald makes it clear that gun regulations don't offend the Second Amendment--maybe now some progress can be made.
"But, of course, the solution is to require any purchase of two guns by a legal American citizen to be reported to various agencies and to have said citizen visited that day by the goon squad."
Actually I say the police should visit three weeks later. All the enterprising young people who've been recruited by criminals to buy guns for them, professional straw buyers, will be put out of business. Don't you think the benefits of that would far outweigh any inconvenience, even considering how distasteful a police visit is?
I'm waiting for Greg and Crunchy and the Brotherhood of the Anonymi (that's like the Illuminati for the anonymous dumbies) to explain how they think the goon squads, aka our local, state, or federal law enforcement, plan on doing anything including putting a toe over through the doorway without a search warrant.
The Eeeeeeeeeevil ACLU would never allow THAT to go unchallenged.
But it does give them a thrill up and down their legs. I'd say spine, but as a group they seem to me to be singularly spineless.
Any police officer or other government agent who comes to my door will have to show a search warrant. Otherwise, said person had better have probable cause or had better show me his ass on the way to the street. We have constitutional protections for a reason.
Dog Gone,
I love the ACLU. Their gun opinions are wrong, but otherwise, I love them.
Any police officer or other government agent who comes to my door will have to show a search warrant. Otherwise, said person had better have probable cause or had better show me his ass on the way to the street. We have constitutional protections for a reason.
And yet you present a concern about government 'goons' - another instance where you deny people dignity with derogatory terms who do not merit them - when that concern is clearly not reasonable.
And then you wonder why we think you are a fearful gun toting coward?
And you expect us to believe that you will stand up to that big bad policeman...........and do what? Scare him into leaving by puffing out your manly chest and thumping on it? Or pulling your big bad gun on him (or her)?
I think it is more likely you'd be shaking like a leaf at someone challenging you - anyone, lawful or not.
Probable cause means that the officer has good reason to believe that a crime has been committed. That surely doesn't apply three weeks later on the suspicion that I might have handed a gun to an ineligible person. That's more like the officer sees me hand money to a known drug dealer and the dealer gives me back a bag with white powder in it. That's the cop is told that a bald man with a cobra tattoo on his forehead robbed the store and there goes just such a man down the street. That means that witnesses see a red Toyota rear end a car at a traffic light and drive off and then the officer sees just such a car with front end damage parked nearby. Again, it does not mean that three weeks ago, I bought two rifles and now the agent of the ATF would like to see them.
But, of course, the solution is to require any purchase of two guns by a legal American citizen to be reported to various agencies and to have said citizen visited that day by the goon squad.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. government authorizes guns to be sold to the Mexican military; those guns--surprise!--end up in the hands of the drug cartel, and it's the fault of legal American gun owners. Would someone explain how that is good reasoning? I'm sure that Dog Gone will volunteer.
If you really want to curtail gun violence in Mexico, we would quit providing guns to the Mexican government.
ReplyDeleteGC spouts and sputters more crap:
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, the solution is to require any purchase of two guns by a legal American citizen to be reported to various agencies and to have said citizen visited that day by the goon squad.
Oh, please - do give us an example where here in the U.S. we have goon squads? I would assert that Greg is more likely to be visited by the Goonies than a government goon squad.
Yes, we do provide arms to a variety of governments that are unable to secure those weapons adequately.
Mexico, with their drug problems. Iraq and other combat zones where they ended up in the hands of our enemies.
The problem is that we do not advance our cause either by NOT providing guns to those governments that are our allies in attempting to end the insurgents and end the cartels. We need better means to ensure that our allies are able to secure the weapons we provide, but only those governments have jurisdiction in those countries. It is not within our power, nor desirable to send our military or our police to do the securing of those weapons.
If you have a better idea that doesn't amount to cutting off one's nose to spite their face, do share it.
NOT arming those who do risk their lives against the cartels or against insurgents is NOT a better idea.
The problem is that Greg sees these as two separate issues, which they aren't really.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about the various ways that criminals get their guns, which is more than just one.
In order to effectively stop guns from getting to criminals, one must plug all the holes. That means from gun shows and from Foreign Military Sales.
Also, Greg, you are aware that Heller-McDonald has held that registration and background checks do not "infringe" upon the new right to keep and bear arms it created.
Opposition to the reporting requirement of multiple sales is one of the main symptoms of the mental illness called gun-rights fanaticism. Greg loves to focus on the law-abiding buyer who will be so inconvenienced by the police check but he forgets all the professional straw buyers that will be put out of business.
ReplyDeleteLaci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteAnd neither is such nonsense required. Let's see you try to get it passed.
Dog Gone,
Do you recall Mikeb's response to me when I said that I'd bought two rifles in one day? He said that it would be reasonable for an ATF agent to come visit me to see the rifles and check the paperwork. I call that a goon squad visit.
You want a better solution? Leave the Mexicans to solve their own internal matters. The Mexican government is fundamentally corrupt, and working with it only dirties us. If the Mexicans wanted to stop the flow of drugs going north and the supposed guns coming south, they could seal their border.
I did see an article a while ago indicating that Mexican citizens are pushing for a relaxation of Mexico's strict gun laws so that they can defend themselves legally.
Greg, if you are trying to persuade me that you are a law abiding citizen who should be able to own a firearm, you are failing miserably.
ReplyDeleteAs for getting restriction passed, that is one of the glories of Heller-McDonald.
No longer can a politician claim that registration, background checks and other firearms restrictions violate the Second Amendment. Now, their concern is about public safety.
And, Greg, guns in the hands of people such as yourself are a danger to society.
If you shoot yourself in the foot as much literally, as you here figuratively--you really should not own firearms!
The same gun manufacturers who rely on the NRA to push their domestic sales, rely on their lobbyists in D.C. to get them permission if not direct orders from the gummint for export.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest and cheapest way to make the Mexican cartels go away is to legalize or decriminalize drugs. Never gonna happen, afaia.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI don't have to persuade you of one thing. You're not in charge. We can argue here all we want, but the laws are being written and the decisions made that go in the direction that I want.
Democommie,
It's a day to be agreeable, it seems, since I agree with your drug plan entirely.
No, Greg, you have to persuade me that you are not a complete and total idiot.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that the law is going your way--perhaps for the time being.
But how much longer will that last before the American public gets pissed off that idiots like you are able to own guns.
How many people need to be killed under the right to kill laws where the prosecutor is left without a case--when it is obvious there was a miscarriage of justice.
Eventually people in the US will get pissed off. I am amazed it hasn't happened yet--How many Columbines, Jonesboros, VTechs and all need to happen before people say "enough".
At least, Heller-McDonald makes it clear that gun regulations don't offend the Second Amendment--maybe now some progress can be made.
"But, of course, the solution is to require any purchase of two guns by a legal American citizen to be reported to various agencies and to have said citizen visited that day by the goon squad."
ReplyDeleteActually I say the police should visit three weeks later. All the enterprising young people who've been recruited by criminals to buy guns for them, professional straw buyers, will be put out of business. Don't you think the benefits of that would far outweigh any inconvenience, even considering how distasteful a police visit is?
I'm waiting for Greg and Crunchy and the Brotherhood of the Anonymi (that's like the Illuminati for the anonymous dumbies) to explain how they think the goon squads, aka our local, state, or federal law enforcement, plan on doing anything including putting a toe over through the doorway without a search warrant.
ReplyDeleteThe Eeeeeeeeeevil ACLU would never allow THAT to go unchallenged.
But it does give them a thrill up and down their legs. I'd say spine, but as a group they seem to me to be singularly spineless.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteAny police officer or other government agent who comes to my door will have to show a search warrant. Otherwise, said person had better have probable cause or had better show me his ass on the way to the street. We have constitutional protections for a reason.
Dog Gone,
I love the ACLU. Their gun opinions are wrong, but otherwise, I love them.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteAny police officer or other government agent who comes to my door will have to show a search warrant. Otherwise, said person had better have probable cause or had better show me his ass on the way to the street. We have constitutional protections for a reason.
And yet you present a concern about government 'goons' - another instance where you deny people dignity with derogatory terms who do not merit them - when that concern is clearly not reasonable.
And then you wonder why we think you are a fearful gun toting coward?
And you expect us to believe that you will stand up to that big bad policeman...........and do what? Scare him into leaving by puffing out your manly chest and thumping on it? Or pulling your big bad gun on him (or her)?
I think it is more likely you'd be shaking like a leaf at someone challenging you - anyone, lawful or not.
Greg, tell us all about probable cause.
ReplyDeleteThe cop arrests you in an illegal act, which is most likely what will happen.
You going to defend yourself in court and say he lacked probable cause?
How are you going to do it?
Come on, Greg, you like using terms that you have no understanding how they actually play out in reality.
Probable cause means that the officer has good reason to believe that a crime has been committed. That surely doesn't apply three weeks later on the suspicion that I might have handed a gun to an ineligible person. That's more like the officer sees me hand money to a known drug dealer and the dealer gives me back a bag with white powder in it. That's the cop is told that a bald man with a cobra tattoo on his forehead robbed the store and there goes just such a man down the street. That means that witnesses see a red Toyota rear end a car at a traffic light and drive off and then the officer sees just such a car with front end damage parked nearby. Again, it does not mean that three weeks ago, I bought two rifles and now the agent of the ATF would like to see them.
ReplyDelete