Firearms resolution to soon be passed.

a reply to: JBurns

If a person is on disability for say, a back injury, should they be denied access to purchasing a fire arm, especially for protecting themselves.

Now, If a person is convicted of battery domestic or otherwise or any other violent crime, even if they served their time, I would think their rights to gun ownership should be taken away. And if a person is found to be or has in the past been mentally diagnosed with psychosis or other type of mental illness like Bi-polor disorder, Sociopath, or duel personality syndrome, and the like. I would surely want to see their rights to purchase fire arms curtailed.

Now a person like my son who is diagnosed with Phelan-McDermid Sydrome. If when he is older and can show mental maturity and understanding he should be allowed to purchase but he should undergo evaluation every year as a precaution. Most with his condition as they get older show they have very docile personalities. Currently my son knows what a gun is and knows what it can do and wont touch one even if you offer to let him hold it. But a Nerf gun on the other hand he knows it wont hurt anyone and loves to play with them. So even with his intellectual Disability he knows the difference between a toy and a real gun, he wont even touch or handle a BB gun (pistol or rifle). He doesn't mind changing the targets for his sisters and knows to clear the range, he wont even attempt to pick it up let alone shoot it, because he knows it can hurt.

I also fully agree with #1 and #2 listed in your post Gun ownership should vary from State to State but background checks should be handled by the feds via the State Police office, and if they answered yes to being in the military they should find out on what grounds if they were discharged. The guy in the church shooting in Texas should have never gotten a gun and if he answered no to being in the military and found that he was, which can only be done by the feds, then his application should have been cancelled and he charged with lying on a federal form. As far as dropping felon in possession of a fire arm for a guilty plea, does not change the original charge of Armed Robbery, it just adds less time to their stay in prison or jail. Which, of course, is a felony and prohibits them from ever purchasing a firearm of any kind legally.

the biggest problem we have are illegal guns. I have read polls that claim many of the guns on the street are stolen. One thing the poll doesn't tell you that many of those guns were stolen from the place where many of the guns were sent to be destroyed after trials or confiscation. Which means the contractors for those guns destruction allowed employees to steal the firearms the states trusted to destroy. Sometimes it is not even in their possession anymore it is at the smelting plants where the guns are stolen from.

And another fact the polls don't reveal is that there are far more illegal guns out there on the streets where no one knows where they came from, serial numbers either non existing on the gun (which indicates it never passed quality control at the manufacturing facility) or were removed both of which are felonies if you are caught with these guns in your possession.

IN any case I am not for Government control of our right to bear arms nor and I for their regulating them beyond our desire to possess them, like their planned smart gun technology which will include all that was described in the OP and in other posts in the thread. But that is the direction that Guns are going because of the snowflake generation and their fascist view of disarming the world.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

like their planned smart gun technology which will include all that was described in the OP and in other posts in the thread.

That you have no evidence of happening and the current technology isn’t viable (as per your own link).

Apart from that, right?

a reply to: TerryDon79

How many times have Chester's Stories changed now? I know this got moved to Skunkworks and all, but wow, inconsistent poster is very inconsistent.

a reply to: Noinden

How many times have Chester's Stories changed now?

I lost count.

I know this got moved to Skunkworks and all, but wow, inconsistent poster is very inconsistent.

It’s not just that. It’s the pulling things from nowhere with nothing to back it up. Just like the “2000 satellites” or “BO signed an EO in 2016”. Things that people (like myself) can check and see are a complete fabrication.

a reply to: Noinden

so what where it gets moved too. You just thing gun control is just taking guns away.

When we see it as Changing guns so they cannot be used and can be tracked.

The tech is there just the US we are in now is not ready for it. But in the EU they are going forward with it.

So just wait and see. When it happens you will both say hey Ol'CJ said they would do this and now it is. Not just that, we have to get a chip in our hand to get one.

Good day

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The tech is there just the US we are in now is not ready for it.

I thought it was “soon to be passed”? I guess not.

Also, the tech isn’t “there”. It’s nowhere near “there”.

But in the EU they are going forward with it.

I would really need a source for that. Mainly because I know it’s not true and I would love to see where you got THAT bit of “info” from.

There’s still the issue of current tech and the lack of satellites in the EU. Hell, people still drive into rivers because of the issues with GPS.

While you’re at it, can you list the European countries you think have banned firearms?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Logic was never your thing was it?

It got moved to Sknunkworks, as its clearly so speculative, that the works of most Science fiction writers have more credibility, than what you posted.

You don't actually know my stance on gun control, so don't say you do neighbour.

Your OP stated one thing, you even refuted "smart guns" were what you were talking about. Then you post patents to smart guns as "proof" one of which shows it was a flawed idea.

So no. What you stated was "that this was about to be made law". Its not. The tech does not exist, its not on the books. QED you are wrong.

the end

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I’m sorry, but what has that got to do with your fictional bill, fictional firearm tracking and you saying European countries have banned firearms?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Blue light does not curve slower than red light. Cite where it does.

How about you meet ME in Wellington New Zealand same day.

Let’s get back on topic and the flaws with what the OP has said.

-There isn’t anything “soon to be passed” (OP admitted that)
-The current tech ISN’T viable (a link the OP provided shows that)
-The OP seems to think there are 2000 satellites to cover this tech in the US. There isn’t 2000 worldwide (commercial, private and military combined there isn’t 2000 worldwide)
-GPS has too many dead spots for this to even be a consideration.
-The OP is under some sort of delusion that most of Europe has banned firearms, yet somehow they’re going ahead with this unviable tech.

I think that covers enough that this should be put in LOL or HOAX.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I showed you that they are developing and it is already iin action but you deny it. the very youtube video I showed you and it was just last year.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Are you going to address ANY of the points I made?