Man arrested in France after wife buys 4 rifles, labeled Neo-Nazi by the state

[Jacque67 7,328]

And that is why we have this at Normandy

That was the result of a war, not an early evening stroll. Lots of young men were forced to fight with guns, due to national conscription. Oh and the dumb Yanks joined the party late. - cowards.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That was the result of a war, not an early evening stroll. Lots of young men were forced to fight with guns, due to national conscription. Oh and the dumb Yanks joined the party late. - cowards.

Really. France was driving the Germans out without anyone's help. As General Patton once said, I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.

[Jawaree 718]

I thought the Bobbys now pack a gun

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That was the result of a war, not an early evening stroll. Lots of young men were forced to fight with guns, due to national conscription. Oh and the dumb Yanks joined the party late. - cowards.

Cowards really--You would be named Rudolph and be speaking German if not for the Yanks. Maybe still pissing in the sea at Dunkirk or selling your women to the Nazi's in France

French British or whatever you are.

[slim 1,533]

The wars in Europe didn't happen because not enough people had guns. What an extremely naive thing to say. Please read about actual events that lead to the wars. I'll give you a hint. The second one started because they negotiated the end of the first one so poorly. Nothing to do with quantity of guns.

Is that why the Swiss had such a rough go of it?

I took history in college and this gun theory was never brought up. What a breakthrough!

I think you need European history 101.

On the gun sales how would you know they were prohibited? Wait, that's self regulation? Yep, that always works.

No doubt you'd champion academia as the "authority" on why and how everything happened. Also no doubt they'd skip over why some countries get rolled every couple of years and others get dealt diplomacy. Perhaps you should skip the 101 class and rack up some late "cha-jes" at the library. How do you like them apples?

On buying/selling guns, the burden is on the buyer but the responsibility lies with the seller. Here in Ohio, I'm not legally allowed to sell to someone I have reason (there's that pesky word again!) to believe is prohibited. Typically a face-to-face meeting with ID check is all it takes to dissuade someone from making an illegal purchase.

A good way to weed out "shady characters" is to require a bill of sale and if that's still not enough, meeting at a gun shop or stepping over to one of those tables where a licensed person is selling guns (most tables at gun shows these days) and doing a NICS check is all that's required.

A progressive liberal buddy of mine who's been screaming to close the loop hole recently sold his rifle. I asked him if he did a background check since he's been championing the issue for quite some time. I'll let you deduce his answer.

Without a background check requirement, how does a seller ascertain who is and who isn't a prohibited person?

Sellers aren't prohibited from doing a background check through a licensed individual. It's easy to meet at a gun shop or step up to the table at a show. Most dealers will only charge $20 or so to run the information and complete the 4473. But a random dude like me can't just call the FBI and get a background check on a random dude like you. How do we fix that?

Where we run into issues is most people don't feel the need to to run background checks when selling a gun. I sure as hell don't.

Why would I run a background check on someone I personally know? And when selling to a stranger, If I meet someone face to face and they show me their ID, I can simply cancel the sale if I feel they might be prohibited. The last thing I'd want to do is sell someone a gun that they're going to misuse. But to require a background check - government intervention into a transaction between two private citizens exercising a right guaranteed by the constitution - is borderline unconstitutional. Can you imagine if something like publishing a book required a background check? How about a protest? Need a background check for that?

Bottom line is you don't ask the government if it's OK to exercise your rights.

Now, that being said, I realize in today's modern America we've allowed a lot of people who aren't capable of being responsible with their rights to continue existing. (We even pay them to breed!) So, we feel like we have to have some sort of "system" in place so those of us who aren't responsible enough to guarantee our own safety and security feel like there are rules in place that keep us safe. We'll pay trillions of dollars a year to perpetuate that myth. I get it.

The simple explanation is it's your own fault. You bought the government's bullstuff that a background check would prohibit criminals from getting guns. Lets just pretend for a minute that we don't eat whatever's spoon fed to us by the ####### tube and we sit back like rational people for a minute. Never in a million years does a piece of paperwork prohibit something from happening in the real world. So, what we're left with is a broken system that some folks say we need to do more of.

Why on earth, if it's broken, would we do more of it? Sounds a lot like the fed printing more money to get us out of this fiscal crisis. Liberal logic at it's best!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The simple explanation is it's your own fault. You bought the government's bullstuff that a background check would prohibit criminals from getting guns. Lets just pretend for a minute that we don't eat whatever's spoon fed to us by the ####### tube and we sit back like rational people for a minute. Never in a million years does a piece of paperwork prohibit something from happening in the real world. So, what we're left with is a broken system that some folks say we need to do more of.

That's true. A piece of paper does not prevent something from happening. It is true that we have a piece of paper that says it is unlawful to kill someone and yet we have people getting killed. But for the most part, those that disregarded that piece of paper find themselves behind bars or strapped to a table and snuffed out. We also have a piece of paper that says it is unlawful to take from another what isn't yours and yet we have theft. But again, those that disregard that piece of paper more often than not find themselves behind bars. That's how it works. Society is organized around many of these pieces of paper. Some elect to disregard them but that's usually not consequence free. If I remember correctly, you've made that experience firsthand once.

So let's look at the alternative. Say we don't do these pieces of paper. That would be anarchy where there are no rules, no laws, no nothing. You'd have to tear up the Constitution as well. After all, in the view you present here it's also nothing but a piece of paper. Maybe it's the mother of all pieces of paper but it is still a piece of paper. All of a sudden, your second amendment right would be - poof - gone. Your other rights would be gone too but I understand that none of them are as important to you as the second. You probably wonder why they didn't make that the first amendment.

Anyway, I would suggest that we keep that piece of paper as it has served us quite well. And let's keep the other pieces of paper, too. I would further suggest that if we had a piece of paper that says it is unlawful to transfer a firearm without the acquiring person establishing that (s)he is eligible to acquire it, law abiding gun owners would not disregard it and the practice of selling firearms to prohibited persons would be vastly reduced. Those gun owners that elect to disregard that piece of paper would no longer be law abiding and would thus become prohibited persons themselves.

[slim 1,533]

Law abiding gun owners already do that. Criminals aren't getting their guns via the gun show loop hole. They're getting them via criminal means.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Cowards really--You would be named Rudolph and be speaking German if not for the Yanks. Maybe still pissing in the sea at Dunkirk or selling your women to the Nazi's in France

French British or whatever you are.

As I said the Yanks joined late (when they realized it would be in their own economic interests to enter the war). Dumbasses like Spielberg make films implying the Americans won the Battle of Normandy etc by themselves. The Brits, French etc did all of the hard work and then namby pamby US soldiers swept in with their nylon stockings to sweep the local women off their feet. (Not much has changed - hmm)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Law abiding gun owners already do that. Criminals aren't getting their guns via the gun show loop hole. They're getting them via criminal means.

You saying that doesn't make it so.

[GandD 5,966]

That was the result of a war, not an early evening stroll. Lots of young men were forced to fight with guns, due to national conscription. Oh and the dumb Yanks joined the party late. - cowards.

Joining late makes yanks cowards? How about full surrender to a foreign invasion? What's that make someone? What if the yanks waste tons of lives retaking a country because the people defending a country completely failed? And then what do you call those people when they call their liberators cowards because they didn't come fast enough?

As I said the Yanks joined late (when they realized it would be in their own economic interests to enter the war). Dumbasses like Spielberg make films implying the Americans won the Battle of Normandy etc by themselves. The Brits, French etc did all of the hard work and then namby pamby US soldiers swept in with their nylon stockings to sweep the local women off their feet. (Not much has changed - hmm)

Wow. Just wow.

[GandD 5,966]

Is that why the Swiss had such a rough go of it?

The swiss were never invaded. They stayed neutral remember? Oh yeah, you don't. Anyway, the short story is they made tons of money off Nazi plunder after the Nazi's lost and they didn't have to give it back. You're right, this is kind of a rough go I suppose. Mo money, mo problems nay?

[slim 1,533]

Was the dude in the video prohibited?

Why weren't the Swiss invaded? How could they make money off the Nazis instead of getting rolled like the rest of Europe? Ask yourself that question. Academia won't be able to help you since they abhor privately armed citizens and militia groups.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

As I said the Yanks joined late (when they realized it would be in their own economic interests to enter the war). Dumbasses like Spielberg make films implying the Americans won the Battle of Normandy etc by themselves. The Brits, French etc did all of the hard work and then namby pamby US soldiers swept in with their nylon stockings to sweep the local women off their feet. (Not much has changed - hmm)

I think you're right.. The US should have let France remain an occupied country. France is good at surrendering.

[RGinWA 816]

Law abiding gun owners already do that. Criminals aren't getting their guns via the gun show loop hole. They're getting them via criminal means.

And you know this how?

Lets stop carding for alcohol and let purchasers self regulate...brilliant.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Was the dude in the video prohibited?

What if he was? How would any of the sellers determined that? By the looks?