Teachers in MA CCW guns in school???You gotta get out more. I know three teachers in MA and one in NYS who carry on the daily.
Oh, and Maura? That's just me, "speaking hypothetically."
I don't believe it. Especially if a public school.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Teachers in MA CCW guns in school???You gotta get out more. I know three teachers in MA and one in NYS who carry on the daily.
Oh, and Maura? That's just me, "speaking hypothetically."
I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.While it's technically possible to implement private sale background check in a way which does not facilitate confiscation, every proposal the democrats are willing to support lacks any such safeguards.
Just because MA/NJ/IL/CA have caved onUniversal Background Checksgunowner registration, doesn't mean the rest of us should go without a fight.
And that's what "Universal Background Checks" really are all about -- registration. First of gun owners, and then (because without it UBC cannot be enforced) of guns owned.
Then don’t.Teachers in MA CCW guns in school???
I don't believe it. Especially if a public school.
I don’t think he means they carry in school (which is currently illegal). But they may carry out of school and therefore might consider carrying in school or at least have a gun locked nearby.Teachers in MA CCW guns in school???
I don't believe it. Especially if a public school.
I don’t think he means they carry in school (which is currently illegal). But they may carry out of school and therefore might consider carrying in school or at least have a gun locked nearby.
No?Yes... of course... yeah... that's precisely what I mean... you got it... umm...
Are you completely fvcking daft???I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.
How about universal basic ammo allotments?Silencers
Bump stocks
Full auto
There's a start.
Without a registry how do you enforce universal background checks?I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.
negotiation = capitulation
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.Yes... of course... yeah... that's precisely what I mean... you got it... umm...
Who’s ‘we?’ I don’t see a problem.We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.
Aren't they checking the background of individuals? No felony, no problem. They're not checking into backgrounds of guns.Without a registry how do you enforce universal background checks?
I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting we require all teachers to carry.
Don't you worry your pretty little head about it.
Anyone here who wants to tell themselves nobody carries in schools can go ahead and keep right on telling themselves that. Just like how nobody else in the world carries "unlawfully," either...
Explain that more. Registry of what? There is already a registry of criminals. Many in fact. Also various registries of people who are certified insane or on terrorist watch lists or whatever.Without a registry how do you enforce universal background checks?
Registry of guns? Not needed if your goal is just to block criminals from obtaining guns legally.Explain that more. Registry of what? There is already a registry of criminals. Many in fact. Also various registries of people who are certified insane or on terrorist watch lists or whatever.
Registry of guns? Not needed if your goal is just to block criminals from obtaining guns legally.
Since the teacher would be carrying to do the police's job in a more immediate fashion, it seems reasonable that in the context of school defensive activities, teachers should be granted the same qualified immunity that the fuzz is.
I’m not sure why people feel that background checks necessitate registry. They don’t. You can either utilize a third party or do it with privacy preserving linkage algorithms. It’s not that important that Democrats agree. What’s important is that we have a platform of ideas that we actually like that have some change of reducing gun violence. That would create the perception that the gun community takes these things seriously and are committed to responsible gun ownership. The current perception (among say non-gun owner independent voters which can swing elections) is that the Dems of have all these ideas (whether the are good or not) and the Republicans or gun owners just don’t care about kids dying. Change that perception by showing them that we have solutions that the Democrats won’t accept would be a huge win for the gun community. We have an image problem as being a bunch of angry, uneducated, white redneck men who would rather kill Democrats than save children's lives. Change that image and we have more power.
Yes, guns…. Say you live in a free state and there’s no licensing or required background checks done for private sales. Now say that free state passed some UBC crap, how is the government making sure that when you sell your gun to Joe Blow privately, Joe is undergoing a background check?Registry of guns? Not needed if your goal is just to block criminals from obtaining guns legally.
I'd be shocked at any female teacher that can CCW.Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Concealed means concealed.
Why do certain people act like there is more to do in regards to gun laws? Like there isn't a shit ton of gun laws already on the books? "Oh, we have to give a little". They already have enough and need to be reminded of that
The courts have upheld that it is constitutional for the government to charge a fee to exercise 2A rights; something not applied to other rights (except in MA where you must pay a fee to confront your accuser in a traffic violation case).+1 billion
I can't think of another right on the BOR that has more federal and state laws associated with it than the 2nd amendment...... even the bullshit where they let the government wantonly violate the 4th amendment is less complicated....
I'd be shocked at any female teacher that can CCW.
In my school they always wore tight sexy clothes.
With my favorites, I was adept at noticing a lower than normal basil temperature just based on her nipples.
Sometimes there were no VPL's. Visible Panty Lines.
Unless she has more rolls than a naked sushi bar, no hot teacher can CCW without getting noticed.
Well, I thinks it implied in Universal that it has to be Federal and uniform. So private sales would have to do done at an FFL and include a background check. Any sale of him without a background check would be illegal. But that could still be done without the government knowing you made the transfer. So there is no need for a registry of guns or gun purchasers. There obviously needs to be a registry (or multiple) of people who are blocked. But again there are algorithmic ways for the holder of that list to interface with FFLs without the FFL having access to the unencrypted list or the government to know who they just declined. There is a separate concern of actually trying to arrest those people who were declined because presumably they broke the law in applying. The government would essentially lose that option. But who cares? Why does that even need to a crime. There would only need to be a crime if they get a gun and if they do that legally, it’s the governments fault.Yes, guns…. Say you live in a free state and there’s no licensing or required background checks done for private sales. Now say that free state passed some UBC crap, how is the government making sure that when you sell your gun to Joe Blow privately, Joe is undergoing a background check?
I know about this because I founded a startup which tried to do a similar thing that allowed insurance companies to pay for rides home for drunk people do they wouldn’t drive. That was before Uber. They would agree to paying for the ride without actually knowing who they gave a free ride to. It was all done on an app without a trusted third party.Well, I thinks it implied in Universal that it has to be Federal and uniform. So private sales would have to do done at an FFL and include a background check. Any sale of him without a background check would be illegal. But that could still be done without the government knowing you made the transfer. So there is no need for a registry of guns or gun purchasers. There obviously needs to be a registry (or multiple) of people who are blocked. But again there are algorithmic ways for the holder of that list to interface with FFLs without the FFL having access to the unencrypted list or the government to know who they just declined. There is a separate concern of actually trying to arrest those people who were declined because presumably they broke the law in applying. The government would essentially lose that option. But who cares? Why does that even need to a crime. There would only need to be a crime if they get a gun and if they do that legally, it’s the governments fault.
Well, I thinks it implied in Universal that it has to be Federal and uniform. So private sales would have to do done at an FFL and include a background check. Any sale of him without a background check would be illegal. But that could still be done without the government knowing you made the transfer. So there is no need for a registry of guns or gun purchasers. There obviously needs to be a registry (or multiple) of people who are blocked. But again there are algorithmic ways for the holder of that list to interface with FFLs without the FFL having access to the unencrypted list or the government to know who they just declined. There is a separate concern of actually trying to arrest those people who were declined because presumably they broke the law in applying. The government would essentially lose that option. But who cares? Why does that even need to a crime. There would only need to be a crime if they get a gun and if they do that legally, it’s the governments fault.
great pointthe US Government was chased out of Afghanistan by goat herders armed with AK-47s and driving pickup trucks. No F-15s or nukes required.