Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

By the way, did it escape everyone's attention that "comrade Bernie" dropped out of the race leaving only sleepy/creepy Uncle Joe?

See it posted on another forum. First reply was “he’s hasn’t dropped out yet”. I didn’t look past that, but googling there suggests he clearly is out.
I know they love old men running, but he was pushing the limits tbh. Would have been late 80s during second term.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

Going to split this for ease of reading. I've also removed irrelevant bits of the reply as the subject matter was not important enough to me to reply to and it was causing the post to be way longer.

Cool, I'll trim it down to the main points.

You claim it wasn't overnight then immediately say you don't trust the Chinese numbers. So you either buy into their propaganda or you don't. Pick a side.

First, I'm not in a battle with the US, China or any one. I don't need to pick a side. The fact you think you do is worrying.


No I don't trust the numbers. I think they are worse than reported.
But even the reported numbers weren't overnight. Are you suggest that they lied to make them worse?

Trump Derangement Syndrome. People who hate President Trump because everyone else does. Usually they have bought into everything told to them by a leftist media or because they're too ignorant to educate themselves. Otherwise known as sheep.

Cool. TIL I guess.
The same phenomenon exists on the other side. People blindly believe what ever their "side" says.
Predetermining what side you are on is American politics all over. It's dumbed down for the uneducated, who can't think rationally.

The message was not from the WHO directly, but them [WHO] citing a chinese authority. IOW the WHO had no proof and according to other sources the Chinese knew weeks before (as early as DEcember) that P2P transmission was not only possible but happening. WHO relied on information from a Country famous for their propaganda and media manipulation.

WHO should have trusted Chinese information in the early stages. The world shouldn't have either. But there as nothing to compare to. Italy was the eye opener for most.

So President Trump, up and into March, continued to say P2P was not possible?

You brought up P2P, not me. I don't think trump has ever said anything remotely that technical.

Yeah, alright. Calm down there "bernie".

Attack the post, not the poster. You're supposed to be a mod here. Attitude is a bit poor tbh.

Why wouldn't who send help? Trump? Did you read my post at all. I just said that Trump sent aid and a naval medical ship, the "Comfort", and Governor Cuomo even thanked Trump for his aid and response.

I think the comprehension was lacking there a bit.
You highlight Trump sending comfort sending Comfort to NYC. I'm saying of course he sent aid, why wouldn't he?
Are you really looking for a pat of the back for sending aid to americans citizens? That's not commendable, that the minimum expectation.

Cass wrote: »

Nope. You said my comment was like the Donald Trump approach. No explanation other than that single line.

Presenting misleading information as facts, propaganda, alternative facts.
Pick what ever phrase you prefer. It would have been an easy "ok, I was being dramatic". But instead you still denying it. Why?

Let's not fight propaganda with more propaganda. stick to facts.

What did i sidestep? You said my comments about China are lies. I said to prove it, you make accusations against me then continue to insist i'm lying.

I've quoted it multiple times. You said.

They went from thousands of new cases per day to none (0), OVERNIGHT.

That didn't happen. At first I gave benefit for dramatic language, but you've continued to dig your heels in, so it's become a bare faced lie.

Evidence:
Feb 18th. The last day with >1000 new cases
Feb 19th: Is not zero cases, as you claimed
Feb 29th: >500 new cases
March: Numbers generally >100, but cases reported every day.
April: Low numbers, but not zero.

Source:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/

And yes, I don't trust the reported numbers. I said that from first post.
I've read that they excluded asymptomatic cases for a start. But those numbers don't match your claim.

Hence i can have an opinion without the need to find alternatives. Buying faulty and useless PPE gear from the very people that spread this virus, to me, is the very definition of insanity.

Of course you can have an opinion. But without an alternative that opinion is worthless, surely you can grasp that.

Buying from China if there was PPE available in the EU. Insanity.
Buying from china when there's no other option available. Not remotely the same.

Nope. You gave an opinion without data, facts, links, etc. and when i asked you to prove it you said, somewhat incredulously, that you were not going to.

THAT is clear to me. Also a small side note/tip, saying "fact" after something doesn't make it so and frankly only makes you seem more unbelievable as it appears you are trying to convince yourself rather than me.

Huh? I provided the numbers in post #1721. Again, making stuff up doesn't help you.
I've reposted them in more details.

So how is what i said a lie when you agree they're not being truthful?

Because the claim you made was also a lie. Do you really not understand that?

What point? You've yet to make one.

I asked you the name the viruses you refer to. Twice now you've decline. Because you can't. We both know why. Just give up the charade.

To whom are you referring? Me or Trump?

That really applies to everyone. Not Trump or you specifically

America has the first amendment which means no limit on free speech. We have free speech here, but its limited.

Secondly taking offence to something is not a cause for censoring people's speech. Even hate speech is protected for that reason.

Freedom of speech means you can say what you like.
It doesn't means you can say what you like with out consequences.
I think that consequence has been lost on you.

I'd love it if you stuck to the facts, when you decide to post some. So far its only opinions, name calling, assumptions and accusations.

You know me so well. Oh, wait, you don't know me at all. Sorry get them confused sometimes.

I post the facts above, and previous. Surprisingly they were ignored the last time.
I think you should look over the thread from a mods view point. Or ask Sparks to if you can't as a participant.
I'm the one whose dealt with accusations, name calling, and in general childish stuff. I genuinely expect a bit more. I've been away too long it seems.

Mellor

yubabill wrote: »

And as regards disease outbreaks other than Covid-19 in China recently, we have H1N1, SARS and if you include animals, currently there are epidemics of Swine 'Flu and several strains of Bird 'Flu, there are some examples for starters.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086218/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92479/

Clearly we aren't referring to animal virus.

H1N1 was the 2009 swine flu outbreak. Which I already mentioned in my post. See below:

The recent epidemics that spring to mind for me would be Zika (Americas). MERS (Middles East) Swine Flu (Mexico). And of the repeated mutated mumps outbreaks (USA, Europe).

And as I mentioned, it originated in mexico, not china. As confirmed by the study that you posted above;

In early April 2009, human infections caused by pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus were identified in the United States (1) and Mexico (2). T

Lick to mexican reference from you study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19444150


So the list of 4 or 5 most recent viruses from china, that you'e managed to come up with is. SARS. The lest recent of the global viral outbreaks. So great, we've established that as also an "alternative fact".

Before you accuse me of being a CCP plant again :rolleyes:
China has a lot to answer for, and if certain practises contributed they need to to stopped, the whole thing cleaned up or it will happen again.
But making up throwaway comments, and then running away when called out on doesn't help the case. It actually weakens it. This is gutter facebook stuff. Intelligent discussion should be capable of better.

yubabill

Mellor wrote: »

Which comment? That we’ve know about corona in bats for decades?


None of that confirms what you claimed? Chartered flights pull of stock =/= pallets.
It was mostly Asian supermarkets were buying up wholesale to sell locally. Buying pallets of stock from a supplier is normal btw. Australia are now getting stock from China.

Aussie media is pretty sensationalist at best. People are quite racist. There’s a huge deal about Chinese people buying baby food. I can’t understand how it’s worth it.



Everything that everyone posts is opinion.
Any “evidence” you’ve supplied is just some hacks opinion.

Bait and switch: You said "We've known about coronaviruses for decades. Their are a large reservoir of viruses in bats. We can't possible know how communicable they might iif they spill into humans. But there no chance that he was ignorant to the risk of a human born strain."

A Chinese property investment company buying large quantities of PPE in Australia and sending it to China in chartered flights is not the same as wholesalers buying and selling.

You really take the biscuit with the last one. We have a thing called science, it's a bit better than opinion. At least some of the links I provide are scientific studies.

Your idea that everything is opinion reduces every conversation to irrelevance and if that's the world you live in, then you are welcome to it but it's not the real world that I and maybe some others see.

yubabill

Mellor wrote: »

Clearly we aren't referring to animal virus.

H1N1 was the 2009 swine flu outbreak. Which I already mentioned in my post. See below:



And as I mentioned, it originated in mexico, not china. As confirmed by the study that you posted above;


Lick to mexican reference from you study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19444150


So the list of 4 or 5 most recent viruses from china, that you'e managed to come up with is. SARS. The lest recent of the global viral outbreaks. So great, we've established that as also an "alternative fact".

Before you accuse me of being a CCP plant again :rolleyes:
China has a lot to answer for, and if certain practises contributed they need to to stopped, the whole thing cleaned up or it will happen again.
But making up throwaway comments, and then running away when called out on doesn't help the case. It actually weakens it. This is gutter facebook stuff. Intelligent discussion should be capable of better.

But that's just opinion, according to you.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

First off I'm not anti Vax.I belive that is an individual choice of everyone to make,on whatever information they have.

Glad to hear it. And yes, of course it is people's own choice. I think it's a choice based on ignorance and misinformation. But full acknowledge that people are free to make it. Just as I'm free to voice my opinion on that choice.

NOR did I say without their knowledge.As a matter of fact ,very much with their knowledge and "consent",or suffer social and individual consequences,in lines of international travel,social interaction and possible denying of certain individual liberties or privilidges.

Maybe, I misunderstood. I thought you were refering to the theory that they are hiding microchips in vaccines. Not compliant chipping.
Hopefully that explains my disbelief.

Dont say it cant happen,when we think of how much individual liberty we give up already on air travel post 9/11,where we are taking off our SHOES[Good job the underpants bomber failed.God knows what we would be taking off then in public:eek:] to be Xrayed and allowing a US Federal 8 dollars per hour Peon to rifle about in our personal files of our laptops and PDA's in violation of both 1st and 5th amendments after body scanning us as well,further violating the 4th amendment?,

I won't claim to be as up to speed on the individual amendments Grizzly.
I agree we have more hoops to jump through for airtravel. I've never had my laptop searched. or phone. But I'm regularly pulled out for swabbing. Its the beard I think.
Personally I think the end justifies the means. Interested in your thoughts.
Do americans in general think it violates their rights? Do they think the 1st and 5th amendments should also apply to a potential terrorist?

Lets face it,it is already happening in some cases with unvacced kids being denied school places and their parents being informed upon.

That should never happen in a public school. In a provate school, its their choice.

Not to mind utter morons and mongs getting themselves chipped for work or to save themselves the bother of carrying a wallet.:rolleyes:

No idea what this refers to. They did what?

If we think this world is going to go back to a "Hey ho normality" of pre Feb 29th 2020.We are VERY much mistaken.There are going to be massive changes in alot of things like travel especially.It will be like "free speech " on social media I predict.
You can travel as much as you like,provided you are innoculated and an electronic reader can scan your chip.Or you can say as much as you like on SM provided it is approved "free speech".

I don't think it could happen outside of a totalitarian regime. At lesae no effectively.

You will proably also see the start of the demise of cash,after all,who wants to handle icky paper money with whatever disesase it might be carryig,and its so much cleaner to wave a card or your palm of your hand under a scanner,while saying goodbye to any privacy in your life altogether.
Brave New World combined with 1984 is what I predict in our future folks.:(

Ireland is a bit behind the times with using cards and tap payments. Credit cards have been around for donkeys. American and Australia are miles ahead. I personally much prefer it, not for hygiene reasons, just convenience. I keep some notes in my wallet, but they last a while.
Anyone with a Tesco card is sharing much more information for decades.

Cass

@ Mellor - Going to shorten this completely because at this point Yubabill is correct.

So far you have called me a liar for saying the Chinese cannot be trusted when it comes to reporting actual numbers, then said the Chinese cannot be trusted. A liar is someone who purposely tells mistruths in order to deceive which is an insult/name calling exercise to me as i am presenting the facts as i see them/know them to be based on media reports, news articles and China's history of oppression and actual lies.

You have criticised me, liking me to President Donald Trump, then criticised him while completely ignoring the factors and other players that are involved.

You have contradicted yourself, sometimes in the same post, saying one thing then admitting to believing another. So its hard to know if you're confused or simply provoking an argument for the sake of it.

You have come back with name calling, insults, and baseless opinions and when challenged accused others of the very things you have done.

Lastly you have denied saying things when its right there in your posts and when challenged on this lie you say you meant something else. You then try to worm your way out of it by feigning insult.

For this reason i'm out. I've feck all to do during this lockdown, but i'm sure as chips not going to sink more time into entertaining someone that is ignorant of the facts or simply provoking a response for the sake of it.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Mellor;113113083]Glad to hear it. And yes, of course it is people's own choice. I think it's a choice based on ignorance and misinformation. But full acknowledge that people are free to make it. Just as I'm free to voice my opinion on that choice.

There have certainly been some cases involving kids having very adverse reactions to inoculations,including and up to death.Whether this is due to underlying conditions of health,or whatever,it doesn't seem to be explained properly and thus spreads further conspircy theories.Maybe it's just that big pharma doesn't want the lawsuits,or to explain why their products seem to be involved in 99% of mass shootings by the perp being on..or off their products.But thats another bucket of Cod to deal with.

Maybe, I misunderstood. I thought you were refering to the theory that they are hiding microchips in vaccines. Not compliant chipping.
Hopefully that explains my disbelief.

Yup,that sounds more like it.

I won't claim to be as up to speed on the individual amendments Grizzly.
I agree we have more hoops to jump through for airtravel. I've never had my laptop searched. or phone. But I'm regularly pulled out for swabbing. Its the beard I think.

Maybe shape it abit to look like you haven't been out in the wilds of Afghanistan for the last 6months?:D:D

Personally I think the end justifies the means. Interested in your thoughts.

NOT to the point where the presumption of innocence until proven guilty gets thrown in the bin,and the US and EU to a lesser extent but more so the UK where this is eroded in the utterly lost "war on drugs" and now "the war on terrorism". Put it like this...How many terrorist attacks were tharwted post 9/11 by basically federalising the same,lowly paid,poorly trained, ****e PR skilled $8.50 an hour high school dropouts who were working in the private airline security industry?All the US govt did was give this same shoddily run industry a federal badge and more powers to act like Stalins Cheka.Where really said all the private security companies needed to do was be funded to upskill ,uptrain and vet better personel,to aan approved Federal standard.Apart from the Brits with their border Gestapo,no one else has done such.
And lets not even go to the "no fly"risk list! That doesn't offically exist,but once you are on it,it is impossible to get off it,or get information corrected on it.

Do americans in general think it violates their rights? Do they think the 1st and 5th amendments should also apply to a potential terrorist?

VERY much so and its the fourth.The right to privacy in your papers and documents and bidy.The 5th is the right to non self-incrimination.Especially if you are singled out for a personal pat down by one of the airport"security" which has literally amouted to being groped not frisked by a same sex officer. Google it,there are videos aplenty of this happening.

Operative word "potential".Prove first that they are one and are a clear and present danger..Then convict and strip of rights.It's the same with these "red flag " gun laws. Prove please that an 85 year old ww2 and Korean war vet is going to go shoot up a school,because some dumb btch waitress misheard a conversation about this ol guy saying to his vet buddies.There is no way inmy time I could desert my post like that[referring to an armed high school gaurd,eating breakfast in the diner and leaving the HS across the road ungaurded],now anyone could shoot up that school!"
Dumb coffee pusher hears "I could shoot up that school!"SWAT teaam and PD descends on this ol guy and confiscates his gun collection because of this Red flag order from a misheard conversation by some dumb blonde coffee pusher.:mad:.THATS literally how stupid things have got over there in the "Land of the decreasingly free!"

That should never happen in a public school. In a provate school, its their
choice.

Has happened in both the US and UK,and esp in public schools.Google it.

No idea what this refers to. They did what?

I give you the stupids.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/sweden-microchips-contactless-cards-biohackers-dystopian-future-a8408486.html


https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/Vpss0HTR84LFH73bKgzHyd/the-microchip-implant-that-turns-you-into-a-contactless-cash-card

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/08/17/140994/this-company-embeds-microchips-in-its-employees-and-they-love-it/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/blue-sky/ct-wisconsin-company-microchips-workers-20170801-story.html

I don't think it could happen outside of a totalitarian regime. At lesae no effectively.

AHEM...CHina???You cant live without your mobile phone in China anymore,and what better a tool for Govt surveillance than one that people wil willingly carry about on themselves without any govt encourgement or coercian?Even the West we carry these damn things and cant live without them either. So how difficult would it even be for Govts to demand you carry your innoculation info on your phone?

Ireland is a bit behind the times with using cards and tap payments. Credit cards have been around for donkeys. American and Australia are miles ahead. I personally much prefer it, not for hygiene reasons, just convenience. I keep some notes in my wallet, but they last a while.
Anyone with a Tesco card is sharing much more information for decades.

And for those reasons I dont have store cards. Yes credit cards have been around for years,and are also the most traceable info ever still today. CASH IS PRIVACY! The Germans are mental about this idea of a cashless society,as they know it is an ultimate stripper of privacy.And they are regular bears for convience and state overwatch[They never learn!:rolleyes:].Apart form possibly crypto currency replacing it,how will you pay for things you might not want everyone to know about?Like your regular call girl/boy?That job you did for formerly "kish"as we say in Clare?Very difficult to hide that on electronic forms.

tudderone

Just watching the mass graves being dug on Hart Island in New York. Its a bit surreal. If someone said before Christmas there would be a deadly virus going around and mass deaths and mass graves, i would not have believed it.

Mellor

yubabill wrote: »

Bait and switch: You said "We've known about coronaviruses for decades. Their are a large reservoir of viruses in bats. We can't possible know how communicable they might iif they spill into humans. But there no chance that he was ignorant to the risk of a human born strain."

No idea what you you are saying there.
All coronavirus we are different.
MERS was was a CV with a 30% fatality rate. Less easily passed than CV19.
The some strains of the common cold are CV. Relatively harmless.

Your idea that everything is opinion reduces every conversation to irrelevance and if that's the world you live in, then you are welcome to it but it's not the real world that I and maybe some others see.

Strawman ffs.
It’s a discussion forum. 90%+ of what we post is opinion. If you think I’m excluding the existence of science that just ridiculous. In my last post I used a ie ridiculous studies to prove you wrong.

yubabill wrote: »

But that's just opinion, according to you.

That’s just childish. I proved what you said was wrong, using the studies that YOU posted.
It’s a really bad skirt trait if you can’t admit when you make a mistake. So I’m not going to co timer with you.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

So far you have called me a liar for saying the Chinese cannot be trusted when it comes to reporting actual numbers, then said the Chinese cannot be trusted.

Please don’t misrepresent my post.

I called you a liar for lying about the reported chinese numbers. You did lie about them, as proven above. Unsurprisingly you ignored it.

I have no issue saying you don’t trust them. I don’t trust.

You have come back with name calling, insults, and baseless opinions and when challenged accused others of the very things you have done.

You can’t be serious. I posted numbers back up what I said multiple times. I’ve been called names, accused of being a chinese shill, a troll. When I called you out for attacking the poster. The wheel out the above I’m happy to leave it there, as I know you won’t admit you lied and won’t acknowledge the numbers I posted.

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[
There have certainly been some cases involving kids having very adverse reactions to inoculations,including and up to death.Whether this is due to underlying conditions of health,or whatever,it doesn't seem to be explained properly and thus spreads further conspircy theories.

Sure there have been reactions. It’s not perfect, but not being inoculated has caused much more deaths. Remember polio. Spanish flu.
The decision to not get a shot puts others at risk..

explain why their products seem to be involved in 99% of mass shootings by the perp being on..or off their products.But thats another bucket of Cod to deal with.

Unfortunately a lot of mass shooters are deranged, that comes with drugs regularly. Legal and illegally.
But surely being on or off a product applies to the whole world?

Maybe shape it abit to look like you haven't been out in the wilds of Afghanistan for the last 6months?:D:D

I haven’t clean shaved in years. The Afghans copied me

How many terrorist attacks were tharwted post 9/11 by basically federalising the same,lowly paid,poorly trained, ****e PR skilled $8.50 an hour high school dropouts who were working in the private airline security industry?All the US govt did was give this same shoddily run industry a federal badge and more powers to act like Stalins Cheka.Where really said all the private security companies needed to do was be funded to upskill ,uptrain and vet better personel,to aan approved Federal standard.Apart from the Brits with their border Gestapo,no one else has done such.

Don't know of any terror plots stopped at airline security. Tbh I think it’s main function is a deterrent. Most terror plots are internal. I can confirm that far more consideration is given to border security at an airport (current designing one).

Operative word "potential".Prove first that they are one and are a clear and present danger.

I get that they should. I was asking if Americans felt those extended to the Middle East, for example. I can’t imagine the average Americans defending the rights of some Arab thats refusing to take off his shoes or refusing to be frisked.

I give you the stupids.

Wow. How is carrying a card or phone that much of an inconvenience for these people.

AHEM...CHina???You cant live without your mobile phone in China anymore,and what better a tool for Govt surveillance than one that people wil willingly carry about on themselves without any govt encourgement or coercian?

I was referring to China by totalitarian.
Can’t see it happening in the west. Social scoring g, that sort of thing.

And for those reasons I dont have store cards. Yes credit cards have been around for years,and are also the most traceable info ever still today. CASH IS PRIVACY!
how will you pay for things you might not want everyone to know about?Like your regular call girl/boy.

I fully agree that cash is more private.
But I don’t care if American Express or my bank know how much I spent on groceries in tesco. All they get is the total amount and location. (Store cards track items.)
Obviously, for transactions where I don’t want a record of. I use cash. But I don’t feel like hiding my coffee purchases. There’s plenty I do t share obviously.

yubabill

We live in the sticks but close to a busy main road. Have to say, herself was weeding day before yesterday and remarked on the number of UK reg cars passing.

Have seen literally one or two myself in the days before that, but didn't think much of it.

Journal.ie reporting on it

https://www.thejournal.ie/tourists-holidaymakers-ferries-varadkar-5071989-Apr2020/

Grizzly 45

Maybe it was all our travelling "ethnic minority"on the move?Seems de riguer to have a UK or NI regd late model car/truck/van if you belong to this "oppressed" grouping.:rolleyes:

Uinseann_16

yubabill wrote: »

We live in the sticks but close to a busy main road. Have to say, herself was weeding day before yesterday and remarked on the number of UK reg cars passing.

Have seen literally one or two myself in the days before that, but didn't think much of it.

Journal.ie reporting on it

https://www.thejournal.ie/tourists-holidaymakers-ferries-varadkar-5071989-Apr2020/

Same around here ive been painting the house and ive never seen so much traffic on our little road from yellow reg cars, ive seen plenty of the neighbours cycling and walking and lots of strangers too im far enough out to know everyone close by
Though its only a short trip to a local beach which is full of Yellow reg cars
Some people are definitely treating this as a holiday which will only make it last longer for all of us ,

Rows Grower

I'm on the Ring of Kerry and it has never been so quite, the usual 50 buses a day are non existent since a month ago, normally there would be all kinds of groups with various vintage cars and bikes and loads of other cars passing daily but it's really, really quite.

I can see the road from my kitchen and we are working a lot outside, it's even unusual to see any locals driving, we can here them approaching a mile off. Bliss.

Cass

Reading in various papers and sites that up to 6 ferries a day and flights (unknown numbers) are still coming into the country even though we [citizens] are limited to 2km from our home and being policed/turned back if we dare travel for anything other than what AGS deem essential.

Irish ferries and some TDs have released statements claiming it's only freight but there have been pictures, which i cannot verify the dates off, with English registered cars, some with roof boxes, coming off the ferries which would be counter to what Irish ferries claim are freight carriers or Irish citizens returning home.

Tom Holohan and Harris have both said they cannot close the ferries or airports to travel because it breaks EU law. I understand not closing them in order to get freight in, but for those traveling as tourists or "non essential" they should be banned from traveling here and turned away at either the ports or airports. Lockdowns, self isolation, quarantines, cocooning, etc. are pointless if we continue to allow unchecked guests to come into the country.

Rows Grower

Cass wrote: »

Reading in various papers and sites that up to 6 ferries a day and flights (unknown numbers) are still coming into the country even though we [citizens] are limited to 2km from our home and being policed/turned back if we dare travel for anything other than what AGS deem essential.

Irish ferries and some TDs have released statements claiming it's only freight but there have been pictures, which i cannot verify the dates off, with English registered cars, some with roof boxes, coming off the ferries which would be counter to what Irish ferries claim are freight carriers or Irish citizens returning home.

Tom Holohan and Harris have both said they cannot close the ferries or airports to travel because it breaks EU law. I understand not closing them in order to get freight in, but for those traveling as tourists or "non essential" they should be banned from traveling here and turned away at either the ports or airports. Lockdowns, self isolation, quarantines, cocooning, etc. are pointless if we continue to allow unchecked guests to come into the country.

This has been a thorn in my side for weeks now and I honestly cannot understand the logic of allowing so many visitors from the UK in particular.

When the smoke settles there will be lots of questions to be answered.

tudderone

yubabill wrote: »

We live in the sticks but close to a busy main road. Have to say, herself was weeding day before yesterday and remarked on the number of UK reg cars passing.

Have seen literally one or two myself in the days before that, but didn't think much of it.

Journal.ie reporting on it

https://www.thejournal.ie/tourists-holidaymakers-ferries-varadkar-5071989-Apr2020/

Dunno, i don't think you would make it to a ferry terminal or airport if you were in the UK, so really doubt it is British people coming here to hide out. I always take anything the journal says with a sack of salt too.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Reading in various papers and sites that up to 6 ferries a day and flights (unknown numbers) are still coming into the country even though we [citizens] are limited to 2km from our home and being policed/turned back if we dare travel for anything other than what AGS deem essential.

Irish ferries and some TDs have released statements claiming it's only freight but there have been pictures, which i cannot verify the dates off, with English registered cars, some with roof boxes, coming off the ferries which would be counter to what Irish ferries claim are freight carriers or Irish citizens returning home.

Tom Holohan and Harris have both said they cannot close the ferries or airports to travel because it breaks EU law. I understand not closing them in order to get freight in, but for those traveling as tourists or "non essential" they should be banned from traveling here and turned away at either the ports or airports. Lockdowns, self isolation, quarantines, cocooning, etc. are pointless if we continue to allow unchecked guests to come into the country.

I have been keeping an eye on flights on flightradar, the reduction in air traffic is massive, and often the only flights up are UPS, or DHL etc, freight only. Everyone else, the Germans and french etc are ignoring eussr laws, they closed their borders. Why have we always to be the lickspittle for the eu ?

https://www.flightradar24.com/multiview/53.24,-6.91/7

Click on a plane to see its details.

Rows Grower

tudderone wrote: »

I have been keeping an eye on flights on flightradar, the reduction in air traffic is massive, and often the only flights up are UPS, or DHL etc, freight only. Everyone else, the Germans and french etc are ignoring eussr laws, they closed their borders. Why have we always to be the lickspittle for the eu ?

https://www.flightradar24.com/multiview/53.24,-6.91/7

Click on a plane to see its details.

I got sent a WhatsApp message today showing the air traffic over Europe in comparison to the US and the difference was mind boggling.

tudderone

Rows Grower wrote: »

I got sent a WhatsApp message today showing the air traffic over Europe in comparison to the US and the difference was mind boggling.

Just looking at the USA on flight radar now, the whole map was yellow, including New York. You would imagine that in a lockdown they would be grounded.

Marinetraffic for anyone interested, seems the fishing fleet and ferries its business as usual.


https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-6.6/centery:42.5/zoom:4

EoghanS

i was supposed to sail to the UK with the family for a few days over Easter.
Irish Ferries point blank refused to refund any fee's paid as there was a mandatory travel ban, as the dont use forced air etc they can still sail, not our problem if you do not want to, despite being instructed to stay at home.
its a shambles

Grizzly 45

Just had a look at the airport info which you can get off Flightradar24.Dublin is as busy as ever in global arrivals and international departures as it was in pre Covid days??? WTF is going on ???

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just had a look at the airport info which you can get off Flightradar24.Dublin is as busy as ever in global arrivals and international departures as it was in pre Covid days??? WTF is going on ???

I reckon thats whats scheduled, but they never actually happen. If you watch the app, i have only seen one flight in the last hour, a ryanair flight from Bristol to Dublin.

kowloon

Are flare guns - the type that only fire flares and not anything high pressure - something you get on an authorisation for or are they treated like regular guns?

Grizzly 45

Depends ,are you tallking about the all plastic OLIN type launcher that fires a 12GA flare?Or the old style metal "Verey" flare pistol? The latter no doubt will be treated as a firearm here,and proably restricted because of it's calibre. The OLIN launcher ASFIK is incapable of accepting a normal 12GA cartridge,[and wouldnt survive along with your hand if you did fire one in it.] But because it does fire a projectile it proably is considerd a firearm? I do know however that the pen launched flares are legal here.,self contained round ,no barrel,just a spring loaded device with a clip to hold the flare in place.Have seen them in ships chandlers here,and a couple of better survival stores.Expensive as Hell tho.

kowloon

It was just general curiosity. I've seen them on sale in Ireland - brass Very types - and was wondering if it would count as a pistol. If it does would that not make it impossible to license one due to them being larger than .22? They're not uncommon in antiques places here and yet I'm sure you would be told where to go when you tried to get the okay for a 1" pistol licence.
As you mentioned, modern usage is probably all the plastic types, but I'm sure older brass flare guns were still in use for years after they were issued.

tudderone

I know for a fact that very or flare pistols in the UK are section 1 firearms, same as a rifle. So i doubt they are off ticket here.

tudderone

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3UBxsWDAeQ

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211291/U-S-government-gave-3-7million-grant-Wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-source-bats.html

Grizzly 45

kowloon wrote: »

It was just general curiosity. I've seen them on sale in Ireland - brass Very types - and was wondering if it would count as a pistol. If it does would that not make it impossible to license one due to them being larger than .22? They're not uncommon in antiques places here and yet I'm sure you would be told where to go when you tried to get the okay for a 1" pistol licence.
As you mentioned, modern usage is probably all the plastic types, but I'm sure older brass flare guns were still in use for years after they were issued.

I know some enterprising soul made some 12 GA conversion drop in barrels for these types of flare pistols.Now,whether they were just for flare ammo or could handle full blown 12GA ammo,I know not. But it wouldn't be beyond the mortal knowledge to machine one up on a lathe. Seen a bunch of those around as well here.But I doubt that they are still capable of firing,and aquiring flare shells for them would be no easy feat.As flare pistols were made in all sorts of cals for different armies and even branches of a countries armed forces.Its not a major headache,and as they are pretty easily deactivated.I would say they are treated about the same as FCA keepsakes of empty 40 mm Bofor shells gracing many a mantlepiece and serving as fire poker holders,even in some Garda households :)thru out the land.

kowloon

tudderone wrote: »

I know for a fact that very or flare pistols in the UK are section 1 firearms, same as a rifle. So i doubt they are off ticket here.

They have the obsolete calibre list as a get out of jail card for having one of those sitting on your mantlepiece whereas, like Grizzly says, in Ireland they're just around the place and nobody seems to worry about it.

yubabill

P&O has ferry impounded in Liverpool over unpaid port fees. Pretty critical to us that ferries keep operating

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/liverpool-port-detains-p-o-ship-on-dublin-liverpool-route-1.4230960

tudderone

Governor blackface in Virginia passes the anti-gun laws. No surprise and cowardly to do it when everyone was locked down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP433o10PT4

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

Governor blackface in Virginia passes the anti-gun laws. No surprise and cowardly to do it when everyone was locked down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP433o10PT4

I thought the intro to that was very good where he took swipe at the people spreading rumors via social media, scaremongering, and generally making stuff up.
"Makes us look like an ignorant rube..racist ill-informed paranoid rednecks."

Couldn't agree more. Outside of gun control aspects, it's just general good advice when dealing with the constant wild claims online these days.


As for the laws, he kinda glossed over them, as he had reported on them previously. So excusing my ignorance, I had to get a list elsewhere. From WP.

• give authorities the power to temporarily seize weapons from someone deemed a threat;
• increase the penalty for recklessly leaving a loaded gun within reach of a child;
• establish universal background checks;
• require owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours;
• limit handgun purchases to one per month;

Accurate?

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

I'm ok with the loaded gun one tbh. I don't think load guns should be left unattended ever.

What's a universal background check mean ,in this context.

I don't know why anybody wouldn't report a legally held firearm being stolen asap. It's a fair assumption that a criminal who steals a gun whats to use it for something that gives gun owners a bad name.

1 handgun a month. I think that more interesting one tbh. From a discussion POV.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

Yeah, that's too subjective and wide open to abuse. If someone is planning an attack there's enough there to arrest them and take away their firearms and I've no problem with that part of it. But what's the benchmark for the other stuff? It could easily be misused by the powers that be.

I'm ok with the loaded gun one tbh. I don't think load guns should be left unattended ever.

I'm fine with this.

What's a universal background check mean ,in this context.

A background check is mandatory in some States for certain types of guns when you buy them from an authorised gun dealer, i.e. in a gun shop. Many states have no background checks if I was to sell you my gun (I'm not a gun dealer). A universal background check would cover those private gun sales too.

I don't know why anybody wouldn't report a legally held firearm being stolen asap. It's a fair assumption that a criminal who steals a gun whats to use it for something that gives gun owners a bad name.

Supposing I only use my gun an odd time and store it in the shed (nothing wrong with that in the US). I might not know it was stolen within 2 days of it being stolen. Supposing I went on holidays for two weeks and it was stolen when I was away, have I just committed a crime?

1 handgun a month. I think that more interesting one tbh. From a discussion POV.

What difference does that make if you buy one or ten handguns in a month? If someone is determined to do bad, then how does this law make people safer?

I can see most of these being challenged in the courts.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

A background check is mandatory in some States for certain types of guns when you buy them from an authorised gun dealer, i.e. in a gun shop. Many states have no background checks if I was to sell you my gun (I'm not a gun dealer). A universal background check would cover those private gun sales too.

Ah ok. That sounds completely reasonable then.
If im buying a gun off you privately, surely having some sort of document to say I’m allowed to have a gun protects you in that instance.

Supposing I only use my gun an odd time and store it in the shed (nothing wrong with that in the US). I might not know it was stolen within 2 days of it being stolen. Supposing I went on holidays for two weeks and it was stolen when I was away, have I just committed a crime?

I haven’t read the law in question, but I assume it is two days from the time you become aware. Otherwise it’s a bit ridiculous for reading s you point out.

What difference does that make if you buy one or ten handguns in a month? If someone is determined to do bad, then how does this law make people safer?.

I don’t think those laws have any impact on somebody buying a gun to do bad. But not do I imagine they intend to.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I assumed they were targeting “new” gun owners being a bit over enthusiastic.
Firearms are serious tools, there’s a learning curve. Somebody new to firearms doesn’t need 10 handguns on day 1. I can just imagine some guy with lofty expectations thinking he’s gonna be John Wick with two berettas.

Is the seasoned gun owner, who already has 10 handguns is particularly impacted. Does he buy more than 10 guns a year?

I do think somebody trading in or selling an existing gun should get credit though. Which isn’t clear if that’s the case.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

Ah ok. That sounds completely reasonable then.
If im buying a gun off you privately, surely having some sort of document to say I’m allowed to have a gun protects you in that instance.

That's the thing about America.......they have their 2nd Amendment. You shouldn't have to be 'allowed' to have a gun, it's your 'right' to have a gun or a heap of guns if you want. And the 2nd Amendment is also designed to help protect you against the Government. Not much protection if the Government have a list of who and where all the guns are.

That said, I've no problem with background checks but I don't set the rules.

I don’t think those laws have any impact on somebody buying a gun to do bad. But not do I imagine they intend to.

I don't quite follow what you are saying here. I'm guessing that you are saying that these laws aren't intended to impact on someone intending to do bad with the gun that they are buying. If that's the case, what's the point of the law?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I assumed they were targeting “new” gun owners being a bit over enthusiastic.

Nothing wrong with a bit of enthusiasm. I was an enthusiastic new gun owner once. Now I'm an enthusiastic old gun owner.

Firearms are serious tools, there’s a learning curve. Somebody new to firearms doesn’t need 10 handguns on day 1. I can just imagine some guy with lofty expectations thinking he’s gonna be John Wick with two berettas.

You are watching too many films if you think people are buying guns to be like John Wick. Bit insulting to law abiding gun owners to be honest.

Here's the problem. These laws don't just affect new gun owners, they affect all gun owners. If I had the money and lived in the States, I'd be the type of person who might buy two or three guns at a time. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy them all tomorrow instead of one tomorrow, one the month after and one the month after?

Is the seasoned gun owner, who already has 10 handguns is particularly impacted. Does he buy more than 10 guns a year?

Some guys would. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I do think somebody trading in or selling an existing gun should get credit though. Which isn’t clear if that’s the case.

Again that's unfair on law abiding gun owners. There shouldn't be a 'one in - one out' policy on guns. We had Superintendents here in Ireland say things like that to gun owners but there was no basis in law for them requiring that. In other words, they were going beyond what the law allowed.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's the thing about America.......they have their 2nd Amendment. You shouldn't have to be 'allowed' to have a gun, it's your 'right' to have a gun or a heap of guns if you want. And the 2nd Amendment is also designed to help protect you against the Government.

Well the 2nd amendment is a minefield in itself.
I’m completely ok with’a convicted rapist, for example, being being excluded from owning a gun. They gave up that right imo. Others will disagree based on a literal reading of the 2nd amendment. Which is their choice.

I don't quite follow what you are saying here. I'm guessing that you are saying that these laws aren't intended to impact on someone intending to do bad with the gun that they are buying. If that's the case, what's the point of the law?

Not should have said nor. Autocorrect, sorry.
And yes that’s what im saying. If somebody wants to rob a gas station, they can do it just as easily with 1 him as 10 guns.
I don’t think that’s the target of the law, as it would be kinda pointless, no?

Nothing wrong with a bit of enthusiasm. I was an enthusiastic new gun owner once. Now I'm an enthusiastic old gun owner.

Absolutely nothing wrong with enthusiasm. I was enthusiastic myself. Spent a lot of time coveting various set ups on here.

Key word was “overly”. Run before they can walk sort of stuff.

You are watching too many films if you think people are buying guns to be like John Wick. Bit insulting to law abiding gun owners to be honest.

It was an example of somebody with of delusional expectations. I clearly wasn’t describing all gun owners in that light. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
If somebody wants to take offence, that’s their right I suppose.

Most people are reasonable. Treat dangerous situations with respect. Know the limits of their ability. But there’s all a guy who has no limit.
Not just in regards to firearms.

Here's the problem. These laws don't just affect new gun owners, they affect all gun owners. If I had the money and lived in the States, I'd be the type of person who might buy two or three guns at a time. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy them all tomorrow instead of one tomorrow, one the month after and one the month after?

If we were American, I’d imagine we’d both already own multiple guns.
Would we still he allowed to go to Bass Pro, and buy a new 9mm, a .22 and a shotgun in the same day. Or have I got that wrong?

I certainly don’t think the Irish “as few guns as possible” approach is right. But I also don’t think that buying 20 identical handguns should be “no questions asked”. (Intentional ridiculous example)

Some guys would. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yes there’s not. Not harming anyone.

I suppose I was thinking that anyone would buy more long guns than handguns. So 12 handguns per year is 24-40 guns total per year. Which sounds like a sizeable limit.
But that ratio is probably reflective of my own wish list.

Again that's unfair on law abiding gun owners. There shouldn't be a 'one in - one out' policy on guns. We had Superintendents here in Ireland say things like that to gun owners but there was no basis in law for them requiring that. In other words, they were going beyond what the law allowed.

I think you misunderstood.
I’m not saying it should be 'one in - one out'.

I’m saying if state implements a 1 [type of gun] per sale. The somebody selling or trading in a gun should get credit and be allowed to buy two, as it’s only 1 “extra” gun out there in the big bad world.
Some will say no. Same rule for all, full stop. I see that logic too.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

I’m completely ok with’a convicted rapist, for example, being being excluded from owning a gun. They gave up that right imo. Others will disagree based on a literal reading of the 2nd amendment. Which is their choice.

I'm in agreement here too. If someone acts the bollix, they should have their guns removed. Some States in the US forbid convicted felons from owning firearms etc. Some states only allow them to have them in their own home etc.

I'd be in favour of preventing those who are convited of violent crime from having access to a firearm.

Not should have said nor. Autocorrect, sorry.
And yes that’s what im saying. If somebody wants to rob a gas station, they can do it just as easily with 1 him as 10 guns.
I don’t think that’s the target of the law, as it would be kinda pointless, no?

Yes, it is pointless. And it's these pointless laws that get law abiding gun owners p1ssed off. Why put limitations on law abiding gun owners if it will have no effect on criminals? Worse than pointless as it damages relations with law abiding shooters.

It was an example of somebody with of delusional expectations. I clearly wasn’t describing all gun owners in that light. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
If somebody wants to take offence, that’s their right I suppose.

The reason most shooters don't like those comparisons as they are trotted out by the media who try to paint all gun owners as Rambos or John Wicks in an attempt to portray us as crazies who should have our guns taken away.

If we were American, I’d imagine we’d both already own multiple guns.
Would we still he allowed to go to Bass Pro, and buy a new 9mm, a .22 and a shotgun in the same day. Or have I got that wrong?

I don't know the ins and outs of the new US laws to be honest so I don't know the answer. I already own several guns as I am a target shooter who takes part in lots of different disciplines. Here in Ireland I have never bought two guns at the same time but I know a few people who have. Actually I have bought two guns in the same month and had no problems doing so here. The problem I had here was it taking two months to get one of the guns licenced and another three months after that for the second one. But that's down to inefficiencies in our system rather than anything to do with legislation.

tudderone

Some of the points are good. Not leaving firearms, especially loaded firearms where kids can get their hands on them, is something worth doing, and i would agree with that law.
But some are ambiguious, define "someone who might be a threat" in a legal way. Who decides ? Someone who has just had a screaming row with a spouse or neighbour ? Someone on medication for depression, which is half of America thanks to the drugs companies ?
The one pistol a month thing is a load of poop, you are either safe to own a firearm or you are not. Same as here, the type and number of firearms is just a detail.
What people in Virginia and other states are concerned about is this is the thin end of the wedge, being pushed by bloomberg and his cronies in the democrat party, some of whom are thinly veiled communists (Bernie, AOC etc).

Grizzly 45

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

Yeah,it's so loose that dumb blonde eaves dropping waitresses on an old 95 year old Korean and Vietnam vets table in the local cafe of his post. misheard a statement about one ol boy "planning to shoot up the high school across the road".When in actual fact the ol guy was commenting about the armed school security man leaving his place and sitting his ass in the diner for breakfast without any relif He actuallty said and witnessed by fellow Vets. "In my day there is no way you could desert you post like that without the relif showing up and being present.Now anyone could shoot up that school with him in here and no one gaurding the gate." Didnt stop the SWAT and PD arriving at his door and confiscating his gun collection as he was "red flagged" by the dopey coffee slinger. Now he is still looking at a huge court case and costs to retrive his guns.
Or your bitchy sister in law after another family arguement red flagging you because you told her to get out of the house and leave. Its wayy to subjective and makes a mockery of the guilty until proven innocent concept of Western law.

The kids and loaded firearms thing.Applying more to idiots leaving their guns in their cars in the seat rest,or glove compartment, or at home in the sock drawer and junior finding it,than actually kids taking the deer rifle or their .22 and going int o the forest or local town free fire area and plinking a few tins. But of course that now applies to all "childeren" which is a moveable feast over there in a definition in law.:rolleyes:

The universal backround check is ridicilous.There is already a backround check before you can purchase.It's called the Brady instant check.This is once your have filled in the form 4773 ,your details are typed in and it would give you a local and national yes/no/quiery answer.However what Gov Blackface now wants is that EVERY sale whether in a gunstore,bar or family member must fill in this form of firearms transfer.Even if you LOAN someone a gun to go deer or target shooting.So that means every transaction must be done in a gustore and the Brady/NiCSS check just cant handle this amount of quieries .it crashed utterly again in the run up to the national US lockdown.Where Americans bought over 350 MILLION guns and X million rounds of ammo in One.Single.Day!!!
IOW the civilian pouplation bought enough guns to requip their entire armed forces from the newest recruit to the highest brass in the Pentagon TWICE over!And oddly,since this lockdown started...Anyone hear of any "mass shootings?" That's why any sort of comparison between Ireland or Europe in gun-ownership with the US is a total non starter.

The one a month is going to fail in the courts.There is nothing in Virginia state law or the 2nd that says you can only buy X number of anything per month.

Looking at this with my TRUMP 2020 baseball cap on:D.The simple fact is anything restrictive is an infringement on the 2nd amendment. There are over 20 thousand federal,local ,state,state,city and town ordinances and laws on firearms ownership in the US lawbooks.How are more laws going to prevent further guncrimes?
Secondly.The US gunowners have steadily given ground,compromised and negoiated rights away since about 1934 more or less.When has the anti gun side ever recpriocated??? It's a non stop daily attack,by very wealthy arrogant men and women,who are not intrested in "just saving lives" and "sensible gun laws" who have armed security to protect them.it is about control and power,nothing else.

tudderone

Have any of the members here discovered over the course of this lockdown, the unbelieveable amount of pure muck women can watch on the telly ? Crappy soap operas, endless talk shows where four old bags put the world to rights, stomach churning medical programmes, where you can watch a doctor work on someones septic toenail or infected piles, and game shows where the contestants seem to be suffering from slow brain death.

I have and jesus it gets on my nerves. I don't watch the thing from one days end to the next.

Grizzly 45

Says it all

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm in agreement here too. If someone acts the bollix, they should have their guns removed. Some States in the US forbid convicted felons from owning firearms etc. Some states only allow them to have them in their own home etc.

I think it's fair to say any reasonable person is in favour of that. Should be easy to legislate for with tight definitions rather than loose laws.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah,it's so loose that dumb blonde eaves dropping waitresses...
Or your bitchy sister in law after another family arguement red flagging you because you told her to get out of the house and leave. Its wayy to subjective and makes a mockery of the guilty until proven innocent concept of Western law.

But it would be very easy to make it much tighter. Instead of deemed a risk [by who ever]. Make it deemed a risk [by vitue of the fact they have been convicted of a violent crime].
That way it's black and white instead of subjective, and there's nothing you can say that will suddenly make you a risk.

The mental health aspect is still a minefield though. How do you quantify that.

The kids and loaded firearms thing.Applying more to idiots leaving their guns in their cars in the seat rest,or glove compartment, or at home in the sock drawer and junior finding it,than actually kids taking the deer rifle or their .22 and going int o the forest or local town free fire area and plinking a few tins. But of course that now applies to all "childeren" which is a moveable feast over there in a definition in law.:rolleyes:

I'd that the "recklessly" part would exclude an legal and safe usage.
But again the wording is important.

The universal backround check is ridicilous.There is already a backround check before you can purchase.It's called the Brady instant check.This is once your have filled in the form 4773 ,your details are typed in and it would give you a local and national yes/no/quiery answer.However what Gov Blackface now wants is that EVERY sale whether in a gunstore,bar or family member must fill in this form of firearms transfer.

Does that mean that there's no background checks at all for private sales.
Say, I'm a violent offender. Specifically exclude from holding a firearm as part of my sentence. I find a guy on Craigslist sell a gun. We meet up, I give him cash. And I'm on my way?

Requiring a check for lending somebody a gun is ridiculous. As would it be for testing a gun on a range prior to buying.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

I think it's fair to say any reasonable person is in favour of that. Should be easy to legislate for with tight definitions rather than loose laws.

Can of worms,extra large.Because of the way the US judical system works,you could be a felon for absolutely anything under their laws.Never have harmed a fly ,and get a felony rap for somthing like not paying your property tax,or digging a pond on your property to catch rainwater. Is that justification for prohibiting you owning a gun because of that felony?

But it would be very easy to make it much tighter. Instead of deemed a risk [by who ever]. Make it deemed a risk [by vitue of the fact they have been convicted of a violent crime].
That way it's black and white instead of subjective, and there's nothing you can say that will suddenly make you a risk.

The mental health aspect is still a minefield though. How do you quantify that.

You can't.Without going into a very lengthy discussion on how appalingly bad US mental health laws ,past and present have been and are along with their treatments of patients,it wouldnt make sense.Short to say.

I'd that the "recklessly" part would exclude an legal and safe usage.
But again the wording is important.

Wording is everything,definitions more so and context of it even more so. For a parent in the US in some state,it mightn't be a big thing to let their kids head off to the local town dump,to go and plink away with their .22s at tin cans and rats.As they and their grandparents did.Lots of US town dumps/wasteland are also the local "free fire area" and everyone know this.But say they get a ride home in a friends car,who shares it with his elder brother,who left his handgun in the glove box.They get pulled over in a proable cause roadside stop and it is found.Now you as a parent of one of the kids who was in the car are also facing a charge of allowing you "child" into a dangerous situation of a "recklessly stored" firearm.Yes! it is that fubar over there.

Does that mean that there's no background checks at all for private sales.
Say, I'm a violent offender. Specifically exclude from holding a firearm as part of my sentence. I find a guy on Craigslist sell a gun. We meet up, I give him cash. And I'm on my way?

100% correct.No backround checks on private sales.Bar Class 3 firearms,but seeing they are on a Fed level of registration,thats another story.Technically said yes to the above,as there is still a presumption of guilty until proven innocent.So unless you know that your buyer is a criminal,or have grounds to suspect such to give you proable cause to deny the sale,there is nothing to stop you from selling it.Just as there is nothing stopping you from asking for the buyers drivers liscense to verify his ID and data,and making a c call to the local Sheriffs dept if you have doubts post sale You as the offender OTOH have broken plenty of laws in doing or attempting such.And why bother anyway,when you can go to "Homeboy Retail"[We have a steal for sale every day!] and get whatever you need ,with absolutely no questions asked?

Requiring a check for lending somebody a gun is ridiculous. As would it be for testing a gun on a range prior to buying

.

Yip,take that up with Gov Blackface.You can be assured of three things in this life.Death,taxes and idiots making stupid gun laws!

Grizzly 45

Well,I guess the Canadians can kiss adieu to the rest of their guns after this latest shooting in Nova Scotia,as no doubt that gunhating Tredeau will be quick to jump on this as well.:mad::mad:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/19/americas/nova-scotia-shooting-mountie/index.html

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,I guess the Canadians can kiss adieu to the rest of their guns after this latest shooting in Nova Scotia,as no doubt that gunhating Tredeau will be quick to jump on this as well.:mad::mad:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/19/americas/nova-scotia-shooting-mountie/index.html

I follow a chap on youtube called Riflechair, he is an ex-officer in the Canadian army. He reckons Canada has gone right off the rails under Trudeau, another blackface enthusiast. Its gone extreme-pc there, and as a result the country is very split. Anyway Trudeau has all he needs to do an Ardern and ban everything. It won't do anything, but they are seen to "do something".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTxp9YJSXI

tudderone

I see that in addition to the pallets of cash Obama sent by plane to the Iranians, it appears he sent nearly 4 million dollars to the Wuhan lab that more than likely let this horrible covid virus loose on the world. What the hell was he thinking ? Why so lavish with taxpayers dosh ?


https://www.theblaze.com/news/obama-gave-infamous-wuhan-lab-millions-in-taxpayer-money-trump-has-vowed-to-end-further-grants

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

I follow a chap on youtube called Riflechair, he is an ex-officer in the Canadian army. He reckons Canada has gone right off the rails under Trudeau, another blackface enthusiast. Its gone extreme-pc there, and as a result the country is very split. Anyway Trudeau has all he needs to do an Ardern and ban everything. It won't do anything, but they are seen to "do something".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTxp9YJSXI

Very dim light at the end of this tunnel.Apprently he killed the mountie,used her issued sidearms,uniform and the police car to go and commit this atrocity.Which is actually incredibly cunnng.A figure of trust shows up at your door and shoots you and your Fam.So how will a "sensible gun law" stop that from happening???