Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...Continued...

Gun lovers will protect their families and homes. If every family did the same, then that would be a great deterrent to crime. Outside of our formal military forces, national guard, etc., the militia consists of The People.

 

That quote is a little absurd, however, I see our gun rights deteriorating in the future with guys like Obama.

 

Do you have any stakehold in firearm manufacturing companies?

 

I have not claimed we have true democracy.

 

Maybe, but if they are not well regulated, we may merely see an increase in accidental shootings.

 

That is total BS.

 

I subscribe to the law of large numbers of gun lovers who refuse to be well Regulated enough to be entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia" of the United States.

 

What does that have to do with accidental shootings?

 

it used to be called the law of averages.

 

More guns = more incidents with guns.

Just a matter of probability.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised you would persist with this dog-and-pony show. There is no "war on the Second Amendment". No matter how often you scream it from the hilltops, it will not become any more valid.

As to the NICS check, I recall asking you specifically where this multiple sale regulation is in these regulations. I have seen it nowhere in the law. Perhaps you are reading between, over or under the lines again.


You had stated that the NICS "would have prevented most of the sales that the BATFE forced gun retailers to make", yet these restrictions are no place to be found ion the NICS law that I have found. Your position simply has NO merit.

Have we? I suppose you and your friends should be the sole arbiters of this?

Red herring diversion.

I didn't outline 'acquiring a right' above, friend, but rather defending it. That would qualify as "retained", no? We have a myriad of avenues designed to retain these very rights you are concerned about, and none of them include your "preemptive strike" tomfoolery. If you can't operate in the system honorably and consistently, then why bother?

That's the point. He didn't express a desire to do so, did he? Why would he propose something that he might not agree with? It's a silly question you asked.

 

I am not sure why; acquiring and possessing forms of private property which may include Arms, is usually considered and inalienable or indefeasible right in most State Constitutions.

 

...and the average gun owner is very responsible.

 

More guns for self-protection = more lives saved.

 

Maybe, but that doesn't account for accidents or willful negligence. And, they can not be any more responsible than persons who are "entitled to the character of a well regulated militia" of the United States.

 

The NICS regulations do not mention any specifics on multiple guns. All guns are subject to the NICS checks. It is the history of the purchaser that gets scrutinized, not the type of gun. Many of the F&F sales would have been prevented just by the purchaser being disqualified, but the BATFE forced the gun retailers to complete the sales anyway.

All avenues must be pursued then in order to retain our rights, wouldn't you agree?

I don't know. He didn't answer me.

 

Oh yes, Constitutions. Old documents that libs say are outdated.

 

I don't say that; but then, I subscribe to the federal doctrine. You may want to refer to the federal Dred Scott decision regarding a natural right to controversial forms of private property.

 

It's good of you to admit your error, friend. The NICS does NOT have any provisions that limit multiple sales as you earlier stated. I'm glad you finally admit to this mistake.

It's certainly very difficult to understand how the NICS could have prevented multiple sales when it isn't even in their purview.

Proof?

Once again you have wandered into territory you are unfamiliar with, friend. I have seen no documentation about illegal sales taking place to known criminals at the behest of the ATF. What I HAVE seen is allegations that attempted multiple sales to legal buyers were voluntarily reported to the ATF that were, in turn given the green light to proceed.

A completely different animal, I believe than what you described above.

Your conclusion does not follow from my premise above. When multiple legal means are at a citizens disposal to prevent what a citizen views as an affront on their Constitutional rights, a conclusion cannot be drawn that nefarious means are one of those legal means.

So, no, your conclusion is a false one.

And that didn't give you some clue?

 

Because the NICS still is a background check on the F&F purchasers, many of whom would have been disqualified anyway.

Proof? Open your eyes, my friend. If there was nothing illegal going on, then I suppose the BATFE would not have had to give the go-ahead with many of the F&F purchases.

A right retained is still easier than re-acquiring one.

 

In my opinion, gun lovers resorting to the Second Amendment to secure rights to private property is disingenuous, at best; since, rights to private property are usually secured by State constitutions and in the case of anarchic gun lovers, they really shouldn't have recourse to the Second Amendment, simply because it does not involve a well regulated militia of the United States.

There is already case law established to secure rights to controversial forms of private property.

 

A certain percentage of applications will always be refused on a variety of reasons. This has nothing to do with your argument that the NICS specifically "would have prevented most of the sales that the BATFE forced gun retailers to make". If you have some documentation that BATFE "forced" dealers to make illegal sales to known criminals then produce it now. If not then admit that your claims are erroneous.

Apparently you don't read your own sources. I suspected as much. The dealers voluntarily reported some multiple sales that were suspicious. These sales were the ones which allegedly were allowed by BATFE to take place. The operation was primarily concerned, naturally with multiple sales (the trade mark of gun traffickers).

I'm amazed you are so unfamiliar with what you claim to be so upset about.

Your conclusion does not follow from my premise above. When multiple legal means are at a citizens disposal to prevent what a citizen views as an affront on their Constitutional rights, a conclusion cannot be drawn that nefarious means are one of those legal means.

So, no, your conclusion is a false one.

 

Good. Now let those of us that cherish the right to keep and bear arms alone.

 

Apparently, you have no idea what "gun-walking" is then. Yes, the dealers reported sales that were suspicious. The BATFE told them to go ahead and make the sales that the dealers would have terminated.

You still think the BATFE is innocent in this scandal? LOL!!!

I'm not talking about means, legal or not. I am talking in general terms about rights. Rights retained are easier than trying to acquire them or get them back.

 

... still waiting for proof that President Obama plans on taking away your guns ...