Speakeasy forum: They're not NRA members, they're gun owners

does the lack of a legal precedent mean it's morally right?

If you sold a gun to somone that you know has in the past done violent crime, aren't you willingly enabling him to continue?

You'd let her suffer? Even if you knew she was in pain, not faking pain to get pills? Sounds kinda cold hearted.

and tell the dentist she's a druggie, and she may be lying about being in pain?

you thing no one with no convictions sells guns to people he (or she) knows has a criminal past? a mental illness?

Wasn't there recent 3 different cases pointed out lately where someone bought a gun for someone that couldn't because they had a record?

My question is, if you (generic not specific) sell to someone you know has done a violent crime in the past, he/she commits an armed robbery and someone gets shot, aren't you knowingly helping that robbery happen?

People sell guns on internet sites, bargain trader magazines, and only care about cash, not who buys them. Not everyone, but would you deny it happens regularly? I hear people talking about guns advertised, sometimes even grousing because it was such a deal and was sold shortly before they saw the ad and contacted the person.

These are basically law-abiding people I hear talking about it. My point is guns are more than once in a blue moon sold for cash with little question by people that want to sell.

where only the criminal element is packing heat.....way to go, Josh.

Any gun control laws?

Of course, there are laws. Just like there are religion control laws that require all sales of Quran to be tracked on the chance that some nut job might kill a bunch of people in the name of Allah. And there are press control laws that require a waiting period of 10-days to prevent some irresponsible journalist from misreporting a fictional story as fact to support a political agenda. And speech control laws that require everyone to register with the government before speaking to prevent someone from giving demonstratively false testimony at a public policy hearing.

Oh, wait... - Mark

>"does the lack of a legal precedent mean it's morally right?"

No, but it does seem to indicate that it is not grounds for criminal charges which is what you originally asked.

>"If you sold a gun to somone that you know has in the past done violent crime, aren't you willingly enabling him to continue?"

No more so than a car dealership that sells a car to someone who has a DUI conviction. And yet, I'm not aware of any case in which criminal charges have been brought against a car dealership for doing this. Nor are car dealerships required to run criminal background checks on prospective buyers.

Mark

>" Do we really equate the two?"

Personally, I do not. I noted elsewhere why I use the analogy.

>"If you have a DUI they take your license, you can drive on public roads."

That doesn't refute my point that car dealerships are not required to run background checks on all prospective buyers before selling a car. Or my point that we don't file criminal charges against car dealerships who sell cars to people with DUI convictions.

Yes, we do file criminal charges against a driver (again, not the seller) who has been barred from driving because of a previous DUI conviction. Similarly, I have no problem with filing criminal charges against a shooter (again, not the seller) who has been barred from owning a firearm because of a previous felony conviction. That's crime control, not gun control.

>" you really think gun owners have no responsibility to help keep guns away from known violent criminals? You want all gun sales unrecorded, unregiestered, untraceable, and no responsibility?"

No, you are again moving the goal posts. I stated that I do not think someone who sells a gun should have criminal charges filed against them. That does not mean I think they acted morally or showed good sense. Quite the opposite, in fact. As I said previously, I would never sell a gun in that manner.

But since we don't file criminal charges against a car dealership for selling a car to a person with a DUI conviction--or, if you prefer another non-car analogy: we don't file criminal charges against BestBuy or Dell for selling a computer to a convicted hacker--I think it's hypocritical to file criminal charges against someone who sells a gun to someone who is legally barred from owning one.

Mark

WHY anyone NEEDS a weapon with high capacity clips...Then someone shouts about Second Amendment.

What does the Second Amendment have to do with NEEDS?

The person didn't answer the question that was posed...So they were heckling/interrupting.

Neil H asked

WHY anyone NEEDS a weapon with high capacity clips...Then someone shouts about Second Amendment.

What does the Second Amendment have to do with NEEDS?

The person didn't answer the question that was posed...So they were heckling/interrupting.

heckle
: to interrupt (someone, such as a speaker or performer) by shouting annoying or rude comments or questions

Neil H asked a question about "WHY anyone NEEDS a weapon with high capacity clips"

The response/heckle was "Second Amendment"

Can YOU link Second Amendment AND "WHY anyone NEEDS a weapon with high capacity clips"?

Thus, he invited answers. and received a heckle.

And I'll ask you to stop harassing me...and tell you I've already answered your question OR I might say..."Like I said"...But will that satisfy you?...OH NO!!!....Not you, you'll keep pestering me.

And we'll both waste time here because we have nothing more pressing to do.

I would have responded with........if one of the teachers at the school had had one, the principal wouldn't have had to use her own body as a shield to protect and die. She would have had firepower equal to what the killer had and possibly could have won that fight with a lot less life lost.

You personally may not feel that people NEED a weapon that has more than 10 bullets to a clip.....but consider how many women are killed or assaulted in their own homes.......by intruders or family members. Women, especially if there are children involved or in jeopardy, will empty a gun and keep pulling on an empty trigger until she knows for sure that the danger is passed. I don't know how men react in those types of situations, but I have a 11 rifle that I normally use for shooting into the side of a mountain to scare of a herd of deer or to kill a groundhog, raccoon, or possum. THAT rifle is a semi-automatic......meaning, I load up to 20 bullets, get one into the chamber, and I only have to repeatedly pull that trigger to fire all 20 one after the other before I have to reload. As far as I know, there are NO 'machine gun' types of weapons allowed to be sold here....they have been banned since the 1930's. Everything else that people refer to as 'automatic weapons' are actually SEMI-automatics and you DO have to pull that trigger one pull at a time....it just doesn't have to be reloaded until the clip is empty.....and nearly every handgun works that way that is sold and in households today. There are very few being used that are 'Colt' type that need to have the hammer physically pulled back for each bullet fired.

When a vehicle pulls into the yard that I don't recognize, I don't wait for someone to get out of the vehicle and knock on my door. I greet them first...walk out on the porch, rifle in hand. I have it handy even when I'm in the garden tending my vegetables.

People are crazy........I'm cautious.........

You really feel you need to be armed when tending your garden?

And you have no idea what might have happened if any of the teachers had been armed. Armed teachers......where do I start my list of things that could go wrong....