Bill, Melinda Gates Donate $1 Million To Gun Control Campaign

[Mr Natural]

A lousy million dollars?

Cheap bustard.

 

[Iceweasel]

A lousy million dollars?

Cheap bustard.

It's all he had in his pockets.

 

[Dana7360]

They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

I live in Washington as well and I doubt very much that this initiative will pass. Resdents here might be quite liberal at large but many are also avid gun supporters. I know I sure will not vote for such an inane concept. You STILL have not addressed M14's simple point: HOW do you enforce such an edict?

The answer is simple - you cant.

One more time - it is impossible to enforce.

This type of law does nothing other than give people a feel good warm fuzzy they they did SOMETHING even if that something was entirely ineffective and moot. That does not help the situation - it hurts it. Such laws do nothing at all for criminals acquiring weapons (because it cannot be enforced) but simply gum up the process for law abiding citizens that actually care to follow the law.



Lastly, there is absolutely ZERO evidence showing that gun control actually works to accomplish anything at all. Gun control is almost entirely irrelevant to the overall homicide rate. What are you trying to achieve then if it does nothing for safety?

Another warm fuzzy. Well at least we did SOMETHING - who cares that it is ineffective. Well, all those people who's rights are being infringed upon without actual gain care and you should too.

It's enforced the same way it's enforced a gun shops. They have been doing background checks for years and there has not been any problem beyond that loophole. It will be no problem to do the checks at the gun shows.

There aren't many state wide votes that the liberals don't win in Washington. Yes, liberals own guns too. However most don't have any problem with background checks. I'm sure many of those liberals already went through a background check to get a gun at gun store. So they know it's not hard to get a gun if you're not a criminal, a domestic abuser or have mental problems.

Yes it will be harder to enforce the private sales. I see that part of the law not as much to get the checks but to prosecute someone who doesn't do the check. That way, we can get those who supply those guns to the wrong people off the streets and into prison where they belong. So if someone sells a gun to the wrong person that person will also be facing prison time right along with the person who bought the gun and used it in a crime.

I don't know about you but I think that will deter many from selling a gun without the background check.

Will it be 100%? Of course not. Very few things are 100%. I see this as just another tool the government can use to make guns more safe.

Last, around 86% of the people in America want those expanded background checks. As you know Washington has a majority of liberals, I would be very surprised if very many of those liberals were part of that 14% that doesn't want background checks expanded.

Stronger Background Checks For Guns Supported By 86 Percent Of U.S.: Poll

 

[Dana7360]

[




They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

you clearly have no clue what the term LOOPHOLE means

for over 200 years americans could buy firearms without any background check. The presumption of innocence applied. in 1993 that was changed but congress, realizing the limits of the commerce clause, only made those who actively deal in INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALERS) conduct background checks. Since dealers are required by law to keep a RECORD of guns they receive and sell, enforcing this law is easy

IT IS NOT A LOOPHOLE since for 200 years no one had to do background checks and that law was not changed as to private sellers.

so stop lying

Wow are you in denial.

It's a loophole to there background check law. The background checks aren't done at gun shows and private sales.

That is the loophole and you obviously don't understand what the word loophole means.

Just because for 200 years it's been done one way doesn't mean that no background checks at gun shows and private sales isn't a loophole to the background check law. Nor does it mean it can't be done a different way any time we want to change it.

You make no sense.

I need to know why you want criminals to be able to walk into a gun show to pick out their gun for their next crime with no one to stop them.

What's your problem with filling out a form? All your lies and justifications lead me to believe that you wouldn't pass a background check.

You don't live in Washington so you have nothing to worry about. This law won't effect you in any way. If the people of Washington want to require background checks on all gun sales anywhere in the state, we have that right. It's right there in the second amendment. You have no right to stop it. In fact if you tried to stop it, that is if it passes, you would be violating the constitution and the law. Which would make you nothing but a common criminal. Which I think you already are. Since you seem so against filling out a form.

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.

I find it more impossible for your claims to be true with every post I read from you.

It really does appear that you don't know what the word loophole means. So I guess I'll have to do your work for you and give you the definition of that word.

1loop·hole
noun\ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

There's a loophole in that law. A way to legally not have a background check when buying a gun.

The error in the background check law was allowing no checks at gun shows and private sales. It doesn't matter that leaving that loophole was done just so the bill could pass. It created a loophole and a large majority of Americans want it closed. The people of Washington will have the chance to do just that in November. And there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Since I must give you the real meaning of that word, it shows me you lack a fundamental basic vocabulary. Which leads me to believe you're not very educated beyond a few subjects. Which leads me to believe that you don't know the truth from lies.

It's quite apparent in your posts.

The bottom line is this, that initiative is perfectly constitutional. If it passes there will be background checks on all gun sales in Washington. I will vote for it. You can't vote against it.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

you don't understand the difference between the state powers and federal powers

Yes I do. Which is why I know this law is constitutional. I gave you the case that proves it's constitutional.

Your reply is just as lame as your prior posts to me.

If you are or were a constitutional law professor then you probably weren't a very good one. I am of the believe that you were lying when you posted it.

Your posts scream that you don't know what you're talking about and don't know how to form a coherent sentence.

 

[Dana7360]

The bottom line is this, that initiative is perfectly constitutional. If it passes there will be background checks on all gun sales in Washington. I will vote for it. You can't vote against it.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

And I'm canceling out your vote. Do you have any evidence that it would affect crime in any meaningful way? How many guns bought at gun shows have been involved in murders?

That's good for you. I'm glad you're going to vote.

You won't cancel out my vote. My husband and all my friends are going to vote yes. I wouldn't be surprised if all the liberals in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area voted yes. We liberals want gun safety. The initiative was written by liberals so liberals are going to support their own initiative.

I don't have any of the statistics you ask for. Since you asked, why don't you supply that info?

I don't need to have that info to vote yes on this initiative. I just need to want background checks on all gun sales in Washington. Which I do and I will vote YES.

As you know liberals are the majority here which means that conservatives don't usually win a state wide vote. They can win in a vote only for their conservative area but when it comes to a state wide vote, conservatives usually lose here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They still get guns because of the gigantic loophole written in the original federal law. Close the loopholes and we will see less guns in the hands of criminals.

If you don't live in Washington you won't be able to vote on the initiative. Your opinion of what gun safety is won't really matter. What matters is what the voters of Washington think.

I am a voter in Washington. I signed that petition to get it on the ballot. My husband and I will vote yes just like most of the people in Washington will probably do.

So, if you don't live in Washington your opinion of what gun safety is means nothing in regard to this initiative.

Since I do live in Washington my opinion does matter in regard to this initiative.

Have fun in your delusions. Those of us who are responsible will do what we can to prevent guns from being in the hands of the wrong people.

The initiative is being promoted as gun safety here. Which is exactly what the initiative is. The ads for the initiative have been running on TV for a couple weeks. Now that Bill Gates has donated 1 million dollars, we will see much more very good advertising for this issue. Meanwhile the opposition has done nothing and doesn't have nearly as much money as the backers of this initiative.

If you're a criminal, have mental issues or have a history of domestic violence I can see why you wouldn't like this initiative. Which probably you are and explains why you don't like this initiative. Law abiding gun owners who aren't criminals, don't have mental problems or don't beat up their spouse, see no problem with this. Since they already have to go through a background check if they buy at a regular store. This is just applying that same law to gun shows and private sales.

We will see the outcome in November. I won't be surprised in the least if the initiative passes. Liberals are the majority in Washington so conservatives usually lose on a state wide vote.

I live in Washington as well and I doubt very much that this initiative will pass. Resdents here might be quite liberal at large but many are also avid gun supporters. I know I sure will not vote for such an inane concept. You STILL have not addressed M14's simple point: HOW do you enforce such an edict?

The answer is simple - you cant.

One more time - it is impossible to enforce.

This type of law does nothing other than give people a feel good warm fuzzy they they did SOMETHING even if that something was entirely ineffective and moot. That does not help the situation - it hurts it. Such laws do nothing at all for criminals acquiring weapons (because it cannot be enforced) but simply gum up the process for law abiding citizens that actually care to follow the law.



Lastly, there is absolutely ZERO evidence showing that gun control actually works to accomplish anything at all. Gun control is almost entirely irrelevant to the overall homicide rate. What are you trying to achieve then if it does nothing for safety?

Another warm fuzzy. Well at least we did SOMETHING - who cares that it is ineffective. Well, all those people who's rights are being infringed upon without actual gain care and you should too.

The judge addressed this issue as well:


'The judge did express reservations about the laws, however.

"Whether adoption of a fifteen-round magazine limit is a sound public policy or a perfect fit with the General Assembly's objective to improve public safety is not the question before this Court," Krieger wrote. "The fit may not be perfect, but the evidence establishes both an important governmental policy and a substantial relationship between that policy and the restriction" of the law.' Ibid.



Judge Krieger also correctly noted that the role of the courts is not to determine whether a law is 'good' or 'bad,' or whether the law will have the desired effect, but to determine only whether or not a law is Constitutional.

This means that this is an issue not for the courts to resolve but for the people to address through the political process.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's good for you. I'm glad you're going to vote.

You won't cancel out my vote. My husband and all my friends are going to vote yes. I wouldn't be surprised if all the liberals in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area voted yes. We liberals want gun safety. The initiative was written by liberals so liberals are going to support their own initiative.

I don't have any of the statistics you ask for. Since you asked, why don't you supply that info?

I don't need to have that info to vote yes on this initiative. I just need to want background checks on all gun sales in Washington. Which I do and I will vote YES.

As you know liberals are the majority here which means that conservatives don't usually win a state wide vote. They can win in a vote only for their conservative area but when it comes to a state wide vote, conservatives usually lose here.

One vote for and one vote against means no gain, do the math. You want me to provide statistics that don't exist that you asserted? That's why it's dangerous to let liberals push their agendas.

Much of the state outside of the bubble universe of the Seattle area are not so liberal. The conservative Dino Rossi won the gubernatorial election not long ago until the criminals running the Democrat party stripped it away from him. Also, the turds in Seattle tried to make concealed carry illegal in Seattle but the state constitution was upheld and prevented it. We would not be 'shall issue' if you were right.

 

[turtledude]

.

Yes I do. Which is why I know this law is constitutional. I gave you the case that proves it's constitutional.

Your reply is just as lame as your prior posts to me.

If you are or were a constitutional law professor then you probably weren't a very good one. I am of the believe that you were lying when you posted it.

Your posts scream that you don't know what you're talking about and don't know how to form a coherent sentence.[/QUOTE]


You are the one who is clueless, It is not a loophole since the law for 200 years has been no BGC. Yes, a state can pass a stupid law

will the law do any good-NO

and you cannot prove otherwise

the burden is on you to prove it will do something. saying it will pass and survive a court test is not sufficient

 

[turtledude]

turtledude said: ↑

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.


This is ignorant, delusional, paranoid, unfounded, hyperbolic nonsense.


No one is seeking to 'ban guns,' to argue otherwise is moronic and ridiculous.


Liberals accept Heller as settled and established case law, they make no effort to see it overturned nor do they seek to prohibit possession of firearms for lawful self-defense in accordance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


Indeed, your deranged frothing at the mouth responses serve only to reflect poorly on those of us who own firearms and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, where your lies and extremism pose a greater threat to the Second Amendment right than that of any 'gun-grabber.'

you keep saying NO ONE wants to ban guns

Dems banned machine guns made after May 19, 1986 so you are lying there

Feinstiein want to confiscate every weapon on Clinton's AWB in 1994 so you are lying there

you are a dishonest poser.

you have no clue what you are talking about

all I have to do is show one person who wants to ban guns

I have, you lose so STFU

 

[FA_Q2]

It's enforced the same way it's enforced a gun shops. They have been doing background checks for years and there has not been any problem beyond that loophole. It will be no problem to do the checks at the gun shows.

There aren't many state wide votes that the liberals don't win in Washington. Yes, liberals own guns too. However most don't have any problem with background checks. I'm sure many of those liberals already went through a background check to get a gun at gun store. So they know it's not hard to get a gun if you're not a criminal, a domestic abuser or have mental problems.

Yes it will be harder to enforce the private sales. I see that part of the law not as much to get the checks but to prosecute someone who doesn't do the check. That way, we can get those who supply those guns to the wrong people off the streets and into prison where they belong. So if someone sells a gun to the wrong person that person will also be facing prison time right along with the person who bought the gun and used it in a crime.

I don't know about you but I think that will deter many from selling a gun without the background check.

Will it be 100%? Of course not. Very few things are 100%. I see this as just another tool the government can use to make guns more safe.

Last, around 86% of the people in America want those expanded background checks. As you know Washington has a majority of liberals, I would be very surprised if very many of those liberals were part of that 14% that doesn't want background checks expanded.

Stronger Background Checks For Guns Supported By 86 Percent Of U.S.: Poll

The way public sales are enforced is thorough tracking sales. You cant require that of personal sales unless you require gun registration. You are not going to be able to 'track' that gun back to a sale considering that the seller just has to deny selling the gun.

Here is the major problem with this universal background crap. Its a feel good measure that does nothing because enforcement requires a whole host of other laws and infrastructure to be put into place.

The poll is more garbage because you are not going to wash this into a single line question. When you start to look at what is required that number drops rapidly.

And the real hoot is that none of this does anything to the homicide rate period. IOW, those background checks will prevent NOTHING. All you are affirming here is that you and your friends are willing to support a measure that cannot be enforced and refuse to actually look into the hard data that shows even when enforced it will not reduce crimes.

 

[Stephanie]

he probably has armed guards for his precious self and family

these hypocrites believe they are deserving of it

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's enforced the same way it's enforced a gun shops.

Really.
I meet up with Turtledue and sell him a gun.
How does the state prove no background check was run?

I don't know about you but I think that will deter many from selling a gun without the background check.

Not when everyone knows the state canot enforce the law.

 

[Iceweasel]

As far as background checks, do you libs know that people used to order guns out of a Sears catalog or buy one at the hardware store with no checks at all? Yet, with all the laws since we have worse shootings but the overall trend isn't significantly more.

Mass Shootings Aren t On the Rise -- Science of Us
It's clear that there is no major upward trend. And slicing the data differently doesn't make a difference — Fox said that since homicides are on the downswing in general, the overall shape of the graph wouldn't change much if you changed the definition of a mass shooting to, say, three victims or more. There isn't even any upswing in the number of school shooting victims, at least based on the Department of Education's own official statistics (PDF).

 

[turtledude]

It's enforced the same way it's enforced a gun shops.

Really.
I meet up with Turtledue and sell him a gun.
How does the state prove no background check was run?

I don't know about you but I think that will deter many from selling a gun without the background check.

Not when everyone knows the state canot enforce the law.

here is what people who have orgasms over this law want

1) cops saying we CANNOT ENFORCE THIS LAW

and the useful fools then demanding REGISTRATION

or

2) some guy sells his friend a gun

someone finds out

and the anti gun assholes scream CONVICT THEM BOTH OF FELONIES AND CONFISCATE THEIR FIREARMS

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's enforced the same way it's enforced a gun shops.

Really.
I meet up with Turtledue and sell him a gun.
How does the state prove no background check was run?

I don't know about you but I think that will deter many from selling a gun without the background check.

Not when everyone knows the state canot enforce the law.

here is what people who have orgasms over this law want
1) cops saying we CANNOT ENFORCE THIS LAW
and the useful fools then demanding REGISTRATION
or
2) some guy sells his friend a gun
someone finds out
and the anti gun assholes scream CONVICT THEM BOTH OF FELONIES AND CONFISCATE THEIR FIREARMS

Mostly, option # 1.

 

[Dana7360]

That's good for you. I'm glad you're going to vote.

You won't cancel out my vote. My husband and all my friends are going to vote yes. I wouldn't be surprised if all the liberals in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area voted yes. We liberals want gun safety. The initiative was written by liberals so liberals are going to support their own initiative.

I don't have any of the statistics you ask for. Since you asked, why don't you supply that info?

I don't need to have that info to vote yes on this initiative. I just need to want background checks on all gun sales in Washington. Which I do and I will vote YES.

As you know liberals are the majority here which means that conservatives don't usually win a state wide vote. They can win in a vote only for their conservative area but when it comes to a state wide vote, conservatives usually lose here.

One vote for and one vote against means no gain, do the math. You want me to provide statistics that don't exist that you asserted? That's why it's dangerous to let liberals push their agendas.

Much of the state outside of the bubble universe of the Seattle area are not so liberal. The conservative Dino Rossi won the gubernatorial election not long ago until the criminals running the Democrat party stripped it away from him. Also, the turds in Seattle tried to make concealed carry illegal in Seattle but the state constitution was upheld and prevented it. We would not be 'shall issue' if you were right.

You're' going to have to be better at math.

One vote Yes from me. One vote Yes from my husband. One vote No from you.

I said that us liberals out number the conservatives. Because of the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area. Plus you're now going to have to include the Bellingham area and possibly a chunk of Spokane.

No that doesn't cover much land mass. However it's the majority of the people in Washington.

Yes the conservatives are mostly in the east side of the state but there aren't enough off you to over turn our votes on the west side.

There's just simply more liberals than conservatives which is why conservatives don't usually win state wide votes.

For example: The last time we had a republican governor was in the 1980s. Spellman won in 1980 but Democrat Booth Gardner won in 1984 and we haven't had a republican governor since. The last time our electoral votes went to a republican president was in 1984. Yes conservatives win local elections in your areas. But there's just not enough conservatives to out vote us liberals on a state wide ballot.

You don't have to like it. You do have to accept it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

turtledude said: ↑

Not a loophole dullard. You are the one in denial? the requirement that FFLs conduct a check was never intended to apply to private citizens-if so the brady bill NEVER WOULD HAVE PASSED.

I know you want to ban guns and you will pretend that all we need is the NEXT "REASONABLE STEP'

you are a clueless. I am against morons pushing feel good laws that have no possibility of doing any good

You calling me a criminal shows what a stupid low grade moron you are. I was a federal LE O for almost a quarter of a century. SO your stupid claim shows what a retarded point of view you have. Yes, the morons of washington can pass stupid laws. and you can run around like you just got your first BJ and pretend you DID SOMETHING

but then again, pretending you have done something is what liberals always prefer.


This is ignorant, delusional, paranoid, unfounded, hyperbolic nonsense.


No one is seeking to 'ban guns,' to argue otherwise is moronic and ridiculous.


Liberals accept Heller as settled and established case law, they make no effort to see it overturned nor do they seek to prohibit possession of firearms for lawful self-defense in accordance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


Indeed, your deranged frothing at the mouth responses serve only to reflect poorly on those of us who own firearms and seek to protect the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, where your lies and extremism pose a greater threat to the Second Amendment right than that of any 'gun-grabber.'

you keep saying NO ONE wants to ban guns

Dems banned machine guns made after May 19, 1986 so you are lying there

Feinstiein want to confiscate every weapon on Clinton's AWB in 1994 so you are lying there

you are a dishonest poser.

you have no clue what you are talking about

all I have to do is show one person who wants to ban guns

I have, you lose so STFU

They aren't actually banned. You just have to have a special license to own them.

 

[Dana7360]

It's enforced the same way it's enforced a gun shops. They have been doing background checks for years and there has not been any problem beyond that loophole. It will be no problem to do the checks at the gun shows.

There aren't many state wide votes that the liberals don't win in Washington. Yes, liberals own guns too. However most don't have any problem with background checks. I'm sure many of those liberals already went through a background check to get a gun at gun store. So they know it's not hard to get a gun if you're not a criminal, a domestic abuser or have mental problems.

Yes it will be harder to enforce the private sales. I see that part of the law not as much to get the checks but to prosecute someone who doesn't do the check. That way, we can get those who supply those guns to the wrong people off the streets and into prison where they belong. So if someone sells a gun to the wrong person that person will also be facing prison time right along with the person who bought the gun and used it in a crime.

I don't know about you but I think that will deter many from selling a gun without the background check.

Will it be 100%? Of course not. Very few things are 100%. I see this as just another tool the government can use to make guns more safe.

Last, around 86% of the people in America want those expanded background checks. As you know Washington has a majority of liberals, I would be very surprised if very many of those liberals were part of that 14% that doesn't want background checks expanded.

Stronger Background Checks For Guns Supported By 86 Percent Of U.S.: Poll

The way public sales are enforced is thorough tracking sales. You cant require that of personal sales unless you require gun registration. You are not going to be able to 'track' that gun back to a sale considering that the seller just has to deny selling the gun.

Here is the major problem with this universal background crap. Its a feel good measure that does nothing because enforcement requires a whole host of other laws and infrastructure to be put into place.

The poll is more garbage because you are not going to wash this into a single line question. When you start to look at what is required that number drops rapidly.

And the real hoot is that none of this does anything to the homicide rate period. IOW, those background checks will prevent NOTHING. All you are affirming here is that you and your friends are willing to support a measure that cannot be enforced and refuse to actually look into the hard data that shows even when enforced it will not reduce crimes.

The government doesn't care about most gun sales in America since they go to law abiding people.

What the government does care about is the gun sales to criminals.

The government can't check every sale especially between private citizens.

What the government can do is when a gun is used in a crime, they can find out who sold that gun to the criminal.

If you sell a gun to the to someone that you know it's not going to end up in a crime and don't have that background check done, the government will never know about it. However no one can predict the future. It's a gamble that's really not worth taking in my opinion.

It's when a crime is committed that the government will get involved and will want to see that background check.

If you're foolish to sell someone a gun without a bill of sale signed and dated by you and the buyer then you deserve all that the law imposes on you. If you're too stupid to cover your butt that's your own fault.

If you don't keep the proper records of that sale and that background check then you're going to end up in trouble.

Most Americans realize that and will take the necessary steps to cover their butts.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It's enforced the same way it's enforced a gun shops. They have been doing background checks for years and there has not been any problem beyond that loophole. It will be no problem to do the checks at the gun shows.

There aren't many state wide votes that the liberals don't win in Washington. Yes, liberals own guns too. However most don't have any problem with background checks. I'm sure many of those liberals already went through a background check to get a gun at gun store. So they know it's not hard to get a gun if you're not a criminal, a domestic abuser or have mental problems.

Yes it will be harder to enforce the private sales. I see that part of the law not as much to get the checks but to prosecute someone who doesn't do the check. That way, we can get those who supply those guns to the wrong people off the streets and into prison where they belong. So if someone sells a gun to the wrong person that person will also be facing prison time right along with the person who bought the gun and used it in a crime.

I don't know about you but I think that will deter many from selling a gun without the background check.

Will it be 100%? Of course not. Very few things are 100%. I see this as just another tool the government can use to make guns more safe.

Last, around 86% of the people in America want those expanded background checks. As you know Washington has a majority of liberals, I would be very surprised if very many of those liberals were part of that 14% that doesn't want background checks expanded.

Stronger Background Checks For Guns Supported By 86 Percent Of U.S.: Poll

The way public sales are enforced is thorough tracking sales. You cant require that of personal sales unless you require gun registration. You are not going to be able to 'track' that gun back to a sale considering that the seller just has to deny selling the gun.

Here is the major problem with this universal background crap. Its a feel good measure that does nothing because enforcement requires a whole host of other laws and infrastructure to be put into place.

The poll is more garbage because you are not going to wash this into a single line question. When you start to look at what is required that number drops rapidly.

And the real hoot is that none of this does anything to the homicide rate period. IOW, those background checks will prevent NOTHING. All you are affirming here is that you and your friends are willing to support a measure that cannot be enforced and refuse to actually look into the hard data that shows even when enforced it will not reduce crimes.

The government doesn't care about most gun sales in America since they go to law abiding people.

What the government does care about is the gun sales to criminals.

The government can't check every sale especially between private citizens.

What the government can do is when a gun is used in a crime, they can find out who sold that gun to the criminal.

If you sell a gun to the to someone that you know it's not going to end up in a crime and don't have that background check done, the government will never know about it. However no one can predict the future. It's a gamble that's really not worth taking in my opinion.

It's when a crime is committed that the government will get involved and will want to see that background check.

If you're foolish to sell someone a gun without a bill of sale signed and dated by you and the buyer then you deserve all that the law imposes on you. If you're too stupid to cover your butt that's your own fault.

If you don't keep the proper records of that sale and that background check then you're going to end up in trouble.

Most Americans realize that and will take the necessary steps to cover their butts.

If I sell you a car and you commit DUI , am I criminally liable?

No?

/thread

 

[turtledude]

[
They aren't actually banned. You just have to have a special license to own them.

you are not correct. You can own machine guns that were registered before May 19, 1986. The cost has gone up 1000% as a result of the law

private citizens cannot own post may 19, 1986 machine gun UNLESS

1) you are a machine gun dealer or maker (Title II manufacturer)

2) a government agency sends you are request letter asking they are interested in buying a certain type of machine gun and they Request you provide a sample for them to try or examine

3) then you are able to obtain a POST May 19, 1986 dealers sample so you may show the interested GOVERNMENTAL agency that sample

a) you cannot transfer that sample to a private individual

b) if you cease being a dealer-you cannot transfer that weapon to yourself

You really are not "owning" the gun but rather possessing it for demonstration purposes

its an awful law that needs to be declared unconstitutional

legal machine guns have been used to kill less people than have been killed by runaway rhinos from zoos in the last 70 years

the ban on post May 19, 1986 machine guns proves something I have said for 40 years. Democrat gun haters pass laws not to stop crime (ONE MURDER-by a DAYTON OHIO COP-with a legal machine gun in 70 years) but to harass gun owners. that is what Dem gun control laws are all about

HARASSING PEOPLE