Gun control debate (merged)

#27,104
#27,104
LouderVol said:
I missed the buying timeframe in that example. Can you point it out?
Click to expand...
MATTHEW JAMAAL JOHNSON purchased the handguns in 2020 and 2021 from licensed firearms dealers in Oak Forest, Ill., Mokena, Ill., Hodgkins, Ill., and Lansing, Ill., and falsely certified on federal forms that he was the actual buyer, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago.
 
#27,105
#27,105
luthervol said:
So there is no valid reason. The only time it would happen would be for inappropriate reasons.
It's ignorant to protect a "so called right" (which it is not) that is only used by criminals.
It's that kind of nonsense that makes the law abiding gun nuts look so nutty.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons someone would buy multiple guns at one time legally, wanting to is valid enough reason. We are a free country (supposedly) and no one should be required to justify their purchases to the government. Someone purchasing to resell to those not legally able to buy a gun is currently breaking the law, what is so hard for you to understand about that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, kiddiedoc, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
#27,107
#27,107
luthervol said:
MATTHEW JAMAAL JOHNSON purchased the handguns in 2020 and 2021 from licensed firearms dealers in Oak Forest, Ill., Mokena, Ill., Hodgkins, Ill., and Lansing, Ill., and falsely certified on federal forms that he was the actual buyer, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Good thing he's being prosecuted for his crimes. In this country we don't punish innocent people for the crimes of others, at least not yet anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Vol8188
#27,108
#27,108
luthervol said:
So there is no valid reason. The only time it would happen would be for inappropriate reasons.
It's ignorant to protect a "so called right" (which it is not) that is only used by criminals.
It's that kind of nonsense that makes the law abiding gun nuts look so nutty.
Click to expand...

Really? Why is this not a valid reason:

hog88 said:
Hell, maybe someone came into a bunch of money and making bucket list purchases for their collection?
Click to expand...

I've bought several firearms just because I wanted them. I don't hunt or have any "valid" reason other than I like taking them to the range. It's a hobby, and something I enjoy. As a law abiding citizen it is my right to own as many guns as I want and buy as many as I want as frequent as I want.

If somebody is buying weapons to give to others who can't buy them they are already breaking the law. If they just want them, what is the issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, 82_VOL_83, kiddiedoc and 2 others
#27,109
#27,109
luthervol said:
Who has asked for a prohibition on guns? Certainly never me.
Click to expand...
you want a constantly decreasing number of guns available to the public. that's prohibition on a timer.
you want a LOT of guns completely banned. that's prohibition.
you have suggested a lot of "options" that would make guns unsafe, more expensive, and/or unwieldly for the direct purposes of limiting how many people bought them. that's prohibition.
you want the government to take certain acts that make legal gun owners criminals over night with no real option. that's prohibition.

the sum total of all the things you think are reasonable or rational equals prohibition. you just continue to hide behind imprecise terminology to lie about your true intentions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#27,110
#27,110
luthervol said:
Who is grabbing guns?
What a dumb term.
Click to expand...
the ATF. remember the gun brace conversation we had going on previously? The only viable option for citizens is trust the government to be efficient enough to process millions of tax stamp forms, or throw away their guns, or I guess sell them. the ATF has taken action to take away guns from legal owners, that's gun grabbing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and InVOLuntary
#27,111
#27,111
luthervol said:
So there is no valid reason. The only time it would happen would be for inappropriate reasons.
It's ignorant to protect a "so called right" (which it is not) that is only used by criminals.
It's that kind of nonsense that makes the law abiding gun nuts look so nutty.
Click to expand...
lol. so you are the sole decider on what is an appropriate reason? how do we codify something as arbitrary as "appropriate"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#27,112
#27,112
luthervol said:
MATTHEW JAMAAL JOHNSON purchased the handguns in 2020 and 2021 from licensed firearms dealers in Oak Forest, Ill., Mokena, Ill., Hodgkins, Ill., and Lansing, Ill., and falsely certified on federal forms that he was the actual buyer, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago.
Click to expand...
so he bought 27 handguns over 2 years. that's pretty much 1 a month.... not 27 in a month like you made up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, InVOLuntary, jp1 and 1 other person
#27,115
#27,115
hog88 said:
There are many reasons someone would buy multiple guns at one time legally, wanting to is valid enough reason. We are a free country (supposedly) and no one should be required to justify their purchases to the government. Someone purchasing to resell to those not legally able to buy a gun is currently breaking the law, what is so hard for you to understand about that?
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing at all that is hard to understand about that.
What is so hard to understand about the fact that lying on a form is a law that many who are intent on illegal gun trade are willing to break? It's a meaningless and ineffective law.
 
#27,117
#27,117
hog88 said:
Good thing he's being prosecuted for his crimes. In this country we don't punish innocent people for the crimes of others, at least not yet anyway.
Click to expand...
Are you nuts?
Innocent people are always punished because of the crimes of others.
 
#27,119
#27,119
luthervol said:
There is absolutely nothing at all that is hard to understand about that.
What is so hard to understand about the fact that lying on a form is a law that many who are intent on illegal gun trade are willing to break? It's a meaningless and ineffective law.
Click to expand...
What do you think is the line that a felon won't cross?
 
#27,120
#27,120
luthervol said:
Would it be different if it was 27 in a month? How about 27 in a day?

Careful...........
Click to expand...
to me, no.

to me, or probably the criminals although for different reasons, it doesn't make a difference if its one guy buying 27 guns "at once", or 27 people buying 1 gun a piece. If the intent is an illegal sale, its illegal. 27 a day, or 1 a year, still illegal.

I like how you admit the form is pointless, but some timeline is going to be more effective. what do you think would establish that timeline? The pointless form you just knocked.
 
#27,121
#27,121
luthervol said:
There is absolutely nothing at all that is hard to understand about that.
What is so hard to understand about the fact that lying on a form is a law that many who are intent on illegal gun trade are willing to break? It's a meaningless and ineffective law.
Click to expand...

Then so would any new law you want to pass.
 
#27,125
#27,125
LouderVol said:
to me, no.

to me, or probably the criminals although for different reasons, it doesn't make a difference if its one guy buying 27 guns "at once", or 27 people buying 1 gun a piece. If the intent is an illegal sale, its illegal. 27 a day, or 1 a year, still illegal.

I like how you admit the form is pointless, but some timeline is going to be more effective. what do you think would establish that timeline? The pointless form you just knocked.
Click to expand...
Then why did you even ask?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top