General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

I think we all agree that a rigorous process should be expected, especially if the potential customer has not been an upstanding citizen.

clearly we DON'T all agree on that. clearly the NRA isn't willing to yield on gun reform since everytime it's brought up (and here at Bandmix is a perfect example) up goes the cry "YOU'RE NOT GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!!!!"

how many times has that battlecry been trumpeted here? oh yeah....EVERYTIME any discussion on gun laws comes up!

so, no....clearly and sadly we do NOT "all agree that a rigorous process should be expected, especially if the potential customer has not been an upstanding citizen."

Harassing everyone else because "someone might do something bad somewhere" is not a good reason, though.

more hyperbole and rhetoric. stricter gun regs to keep weapons out of the hands of wackos is hardly "harassing everyone". at worst it's a minor inconvenience that everyone should be happy and willing to deal with if it saves even one life.

but no, those who fight tooth and nail against reform aren't thinking about that...they're thinking about THEMSELVES and THEIR GUNS. (spare me all the freedom, and constitutional "guarantees" BS arguments) sorry, but from where i sit...that's just self centered, and self indulgent selfishness. That's all about how it affects the gun owners and never looks at the victims.

but no, those who fight tooth and nail against reform aren't thinking about that...they're thinking about THEMSELVES and THEIR GUNS. (spare me all the freedom, and constitutional "guarantees" BS arguments) sorry, but from where i sit...that's just self centered, and self indulgent selfishness. That's all about how it affects the gun owners and never looks at the victims.

You can only imagine that which you already know. Self indulgent selfishness is the driving force of the left. Oh, don't infringe on your right to kill innocent children, or pack chocolate into the rear of a boy, or put a porn theatre next to a church, or piss on Jesus. But give every citizen the ability to protect themselves from criminals??? Oh, that's just beyond what freedom should be, eh?

No matter how many times it is proven over and over again, the point remains; The Second Amendment is about protecting the victims......from criminals and totalitarian dictators.

For every whacko that goes around the gun laws and commits a crime, there are a hundred thousand crimes prevented. THOSE are the victims we support.

No matter how many laws you make on extreme cases, murders will continue to happen as long as liberals make excuses for criminal behavior. Like Ferguson, like abortion, like gay-marriage bullying, etc.

Making law based on extreme cases is how liberals (right and left) have destroyed the rights given to all citizens by the Constitution. The founders of the Constitution expected us to respect all men and apply all law fairly and equally as intended. The abuses and corruption of government power, and the propaganda of Leftists are why we have the problems we have today. Instead, they keep chipping away at all that guarantees liberty.

I don't own a gun but I support the NRA protecting the rights of gun owners from any restriction that can not be equally applied to government, criminals, and government criminals.

"n regards to the 2nd amendment....do you really think the framers of the constitution ever envisioned a time when yahoos would walk into movie theaters, shopping malls, and recruitment offices with assault weapons to blast away?"

Thats rather a rather stupid thought of little insight. An assault weapon"can be anything from a high heeled shoe to a tree branch or a rock and anything in between. "Assault weapon" is such a misleading moronic liberal misapplication of terminology. Even a clenched fist can be the assault weapon that has the ability to kill someone.

Do you actually believe they thought movie theaters and shopping malls might even exist? If they could have, most likely they would also believe that law abiding citizens who were also armed would stop to the villain in short order. After all, the 2nd is the given right of freedom loving people to stop villains, even when they are a tyrannical government. Have you ever read it with any comprehension"?

While you are so busy trying to take the rights away from law abiding citizens aren't you even wise enough to see that you are wishing to legislate away your own rights? But again, that is what fools have been doing for years. Stupid is as stupid does. Only a Pollyanna would believe that taking guns from law abiding citizens will stop evil people from obtaining them. What evil would stop killing if there were no guns? They would make pipe bombs or other devices and no one could stop them. Ever hear of a pressure cooker bomb? How about a great big "Like Duh" from the Communistic Utopia crowd.

First the registration (criminals won't register their guns) then the confiscation (criminals will hide their guns) and then the tyrants shall have their way with you.

Thats rather a rather stupid thought of little insight. "An assault weapon"can be anything from a high heeled shoe to a tree branch or a rock and anything in between. "Assault weapon" is such a misleading moronic liberal misapplication of terminology. Even a clenched fist can be the assault weapon that has the ability to kill someone."

no, THAT is "rather a rather stupid thought of little insight." how many mass murders are committed with branches or fists? your addle minded rationale might have YOU taking your chances w someone w an AK47 over someone w a branch.....but most intelligent and clear thinking people WOULD prefer dealing w a wacko w a branch.

or are you so thick headed and argumentative that want to challenge that too?

Do you actually believe they thought movie theaters and shopping malls might even exist?"

wow, are you REALLY that obtuse w your head THAT far up your behind????? that's EXACTLY the point. no, the framers did NOT have a crystal ball and could not forsee things 200 plus yrs down the rd. thanks for making my point.

While you are so busy trying to take the rights away from law abiding citizens aren't you even wise enough to see that you are wishing to legislate away your own rights? But again, that is what fools have been doing for years. Stupid is as stupid does."

are you so "stupid and foolish" to believe that background checks equals taking away guns???? (rhetorical question)

Only a Pollyanna would believe that taking guns from law abiding citizens will stop evil people from obtaining them.

and only a duplicitous liar, or a complete dolt represents background checks as "taking guns from law abiding citizens"

which are you?

and every "law abiding citizen" w a gun who's bought one to "protect themselves" remains as such...that is right until they have a melt down and shoot a newscaster and cameraman because they got fired.

yep...it's a good thing HIS RIGHTS weren't trampled on w a background check that would have showed he had a long history of instability.

oh, no......the horror! that goes against THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!

But give every citizen the ability to protect themselves from criminals??? Oh, that's just beyond what freedom should be, eh?

that's the problem right there. give EVERY citizen a gun?

or as you put it "give every citizen the ability to protect themselves from criminals" (same thing)

that thinking gives every crazy and criminal equal opportunity to "protect themselves". (remember they're ALL law abiding citizens...until they're NOT)

i'm waiting for you to explain how background checks prevent stable people who have no record of beserkitudeness from "protecting themselves".

hey, if you didn't just get released from a mental ward or the hoosegow.....go out and get yourself the biggest gun you can find. god bless.

For every whacko that goes around the gun laws and commits a crime, there are a hundred thousand crimes prevented. THOSE are the victims we support.

i'm calling BS on that one. first...show me stats that support that silly notion and those numbers.

secondly, it's clearly NOT working. if it did we wouldn't be number one w a bullet. the nation w the most guns...AND the most murders, most violent gun crime, and most mass murders.

but no.....you say it's NOT because we have MORE guns..... but not enough!!!!!! that's insanity!

do you really believe that other countries don't have crazies, disgruntled employees, drivers annoyed by road rage???? so why aren't THEIR stats as horrifying as our's?

the good ol' USA leads the world w gun violence. why? and you assert it's not because they're too readily available????

yeah, but what could be cooler than having Charlton Heston as your spokesperson?

" I thought you didn't respond to "liberal" posts. What else do you lie about?"

That's your problem in a nutshell, the incapability of reasonable thought. Show me where I said that. It may be hard since I never said it. So the best that you can come up with is name calling and false accusations? Typical.

But give every citizen the ability to protect themselves from criminals??? Oh, that's just beyond what freedom should be, eh?

that's the problem right there. give EVERY citizen a gun?

I'm stunned at the failure of our educational system if every citizen doesn't know that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was written for.

i'm calling BS on that one. first...show me stats that support that silly notion and those numbers.

You've been shown them before. When will you read and comprehend?

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

secondly, it's clearly NOT working.

it is for 2.5 million people per year.

How many did it not work for? Where are they?


.

I should know better. Mark, THAT CONSTITUTION WILL NOT BE DESTROYED by liberal thinking that is constrained by a document that is is so brilliant that when it was started to be drafted in 1787... It is valid today.

Obviously Mark you could never hold a public office, unless you lie, that swears to uphold the constitution.

You have been a privileged sheep all your life, because of that PESKY DOCUMENT! FCU!

The tyrannical left do not want to take guns from citizens. More and more gun laws only make sense to the illogical mentally ill who are demanding them.

They only want background checks to ferret out the mentally ill.

The problem with that is that you do not know who the mentally ill are until they reveal themselves as being mentally ill. Those who have already been institutionalized are already not permitted to have guns. Even ex servicemen are denied in many cases. So what is the real drive for more gun control and background checks that won't find any new mentally ill gun owners? It is simple to anyone with a working brain to surmise.

They want to leave the definition of mentally ill to interpretation. That way the gestapo can declare almost everyone who applies for a permit or anyone owning a firearm mentally ill in some manner and confiscate their weapon. That is it in a nutshell. Whenever a politician says we don't want to take your guns, we only want to make sure that the mentally ill don't get their hands on them, it is obvious that they are lying through their asses and they want to take your guns.

In almost every case the shooters either stole the weapon, bought it illegally, or purchased it while "sane" and their mental condition could not possible be found in any background check no matter how thorough. The need for more background checks are like treating someone for injuries in a car crash before they are in a car crash, but naturally that makes perfect sense to liberal mindset. No further background checks would stop a crime of passion, or a disgruntled worker, or a closet racist or terrorist or anyone who has not shown a propensity towards violence. How many times have FAMILY members or neighbors said :"He was such a pleasant man whenever we spoke", or the family saying "We never could have expected that from him?" And just how good can those background checks for the "mentally ill" possibly be if family members and neighbors who live with them don't know their mental state? Doesn't that in itself reveal the motives behind tyrants calling for more gun control" How about car control, sharp kitchen knife control, pressure cooker control? Makes as much sense..

Only the tyrannical leftist gun grabbers would like you to believe otherwise. If that were not so, every incident involving gun violence would be highly publicized, but only the ones that can be used for the political advantage of tyrants make the headlines. Not so? How often for you hear about black on black gun violence in Chicago or Baltimore as examples. Most all those guns are owned by gang members and are obtained illegally. No way to accuse law abiding gun owners in those crimes so leftist Pravda remains silent until an event can be propagandized. Do you hear about those murders nationally day after day every hour on the hour? And we can thank our "leaders" for instigating the increase of those incidents of gun violence. Those who can think should think about it.

i'm calling BS on that one. first...show me stats that support that silly notion and those numbers.

You've been shown them before. When will you read and comprehend?

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

secondly, it's clearly NOT working.

it is for 2.5 million people per year.

How many did it not work for? Where are they?


.

"How many did it not work for? Where are they? "

White House Concedes New Gun Laws Wouldn’t Have Stopped Va. Gunman
The decision vindicates the government’s stance that NSA’s bulk surveillance programs are constitutional, the White House said Friday

http://www.infowars.com/white-house-con ... va-gunman/

White House Concedes New Gun Laws Wouldn’t Have Stopped Va. Gunman

by Dave Boyer Washington Times | August 29, 2015
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter43Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page

The White House conceded Friday that new gun regulations probably wouldn’t have prevented the gunman who murdered two television journalists in southwestern Virginia this week.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said it appears that a proposal championed by President Obama to require background checks on purchases at gun shows “would not have applied in this particular case.”

Law enforcement officials said gunman Vester Flanagan used a Glock handgun in Wednesday’s shooting, one of two that he bought last month. He legally bought two Glock model 19 handguns from a Virginia dealer.

Mr. Earnest said the White House has never suggested that one piece of gun legislation would prevent all gun violence in the U.S. But Mr. Earnest said the proposal on background checks, which failed in the Senate in 2013, would prevent other shooting deaths around the country every day.

Would you all consider not replying to Mark? On all that he post's he is clearly against the law and AMERICAN LAW.
Good news... First MIKE BICH has not attempted to abridge my first amendment rights... Second point of good news...
WE ONLY HAD 46 SENATORS that voted for UN RESOLUTION 2117 allowing worldwide control of firearms... ANY ONE NEED A LIST OF THESE TRAITORS?

Mark thinks he is doing good for all men... I think he is far more dangerous... I wouldn't let him have a gun. NOT A LAUGHING MATTER!