Is Politicizing Tragedy Wrong?

[iceberg]

Come on. You admit there is a gun show loophole, but try to say people not capable of buying a gun otherwise don't take advantage of it? You have done nothing more than repeat all the goofy NRA talking points. We both know those are mostly crap

by definition you *can't* take advantage of it. the loophole is meant for the one-time sale of a gun. not to sell a lot of guns and not to go into business and avoid the law. you try to do that, you are breaking the law. arrest them.

and if you think i'm parakeeting then you are not listening.

we can do away with the gun show loophole by giving free background checks at the gun show. should be easy enough. miss that part of my statement, didja?

i said not many are used in crimes and invited you to google it up and *not* parakeet the anti-gun crowd 40% bullshit figure.

i also said we need to revamp the entire background check system and allow for other "lists" and ensure due process is included. you hear the NRA say that one much, doya's?

next time read what i say before responding. it makes this much smoother.

You're intentionally ignoring so much. If there was just one seller, your silly remarks about taking advantage might make sense. There are as many sellers as there are buyers. No way to keep track on how many each of them sell, especially since there is no paperwork or requirement for any record keeping.

Free background checks would be great, but unless they are required, who would bother, and why should they bother?

I tried googling it, but since the NRA owned congressmen made it illegal for records to be kept on that type thing, there are no credible reports that are much less than 20 years old.

Yes you are parroting their crap.

again - you're not listening to me. you're hearing what you want out of what i am saying then instead of trying to understand, *i'm* the one ignoring a bunch.

how many people sell guns via the gun show loophole? you need to tell me this at this point cause to date, you have not that i have seen. please do not run to the 40% bullshit either. that would be you parroting their crap. also - if no way to keep track where did their 40% come from?

and i said free background checks SO THEY DO GET DONE - not as an option. i am saying just do away with the damn gun show loophole because if you're at a gun show, someone can do it for you. if $25 is an issue, have a voucher program to let them get it done for free.

THIRD FUCKING TIME I SAID THIS - you going to mis-read me again?

i also said people who are writing the laws need to be tested and certified to do so to AVOID it becoming a political issue. together the NRA and the gov needs to come up with a new system that will satisfy as many as possible but no - not all will be happy. never gonna happen but we do need to do more than we are doing today.

but the background checks we have are pointless as it stands. those need to have some meat into them AND they need to follow due process. period.

now if someone is selling guns FOR A LIVING via this loophole - that is already illegal - prosecute. i've said this before as well but you fly by it to keep saying i'm not listening *to you*. what good do more laws do if you're not utilizing the ones in place for this already?

i've pointed out various ideas i've had about getting a licenses/class first that would piss off many gun owners - but hey - i'm a party-liner dude!
i've pointed out you can easily do away with the gun show loophole cause you're at a gun show - hit any dealer there and they can and will do one for you for $25.
i've pointed out an educational system for both law makers and the average user that needs to be in place

but you've bypassed all of that and said google stumped you.

great. when you want to listen let me know cause i've FAR FROM parkeeted jack nor shit about the NRA party lines.

The 40% you keep mentioning certainly didn't come from me, and I've never used it in this subject. You are right about there being no way to know unless background checks are universally required. The way it is now, a person could make a very good living selling used guns because there is no record to tell how many guns he already sold. Of course, the cops could keep him under surveillance, and eventually build a case against him, but that won't happen with every individual seller, now will it? It's not unreasonable to expect background checks for EVERY gun that is sold by ANYONE.

trying to head off a common fallacy on the 40%. that's just utter bullshit and one of the reasons that "common sense" laws are so hard to come by. you can't inflate shit like that then turn around and ask the other side to "be honest".

they can keep an eye on people and people selling guns illegally happen all the time - but find them and put them in prison. trouble is, prison time is hard to come by for these crimes so it makes it more worth the risk.

background checks alone are simply not the answer. the background checks themselves must be improved and inclusive - however they must also follow due process. things like nofly and terror watch list remove due process completely and then go "but it's for a good cause".

never is it for a good cause to remove our rights. you'd think bush's homeland security would drive that point home.

so you do away with the loophole - fine. i'll go with that cause it's pretty easy to get the wasted background check done anyway. now tell me - will illegal gun sales slow down much? stop? from what i've researched, not really.

if in that "40%" number they are including guns from felons and the like, that will continue regardless of a loophole or not. so blocking this - what affect does it really have overall?

nothing. it honestly doesn't change the way a criminal will acquire a gun. so if the left gets what they ask for and this is done away with - will they call their job done or move onto the next law they must have their way?

#2. every time. which makes the NRA and gun supporters fight them tooth and nail cause if they don't you wind up with stupid california laws that says you need a license to buy bullets now. or shotguns can't carry more than 3 rounds. or mags can be thrown away, just don't make them more than 8 capacity...

we need so much more than doing away with a law that in the end doesn't affect this much at all but look at the attention it actually gets.

 

[BULLDOG]

Come on. Don't stop there. Go ahead and finish it. You know what right wing radio already told you that I think about it.

You mean this?...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

Here's your chance to speak up, if you dare...no need to be skeered. No NRA owned right wing politician boogymen hiding under the keyboard gonna jump out and grab you by the 1A.

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd. That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

 

[BULLDOG]

Come on. You admit there is a gun show loophole, but try to say people not capable of buying a gun otherwise don't take advantage of it? You have done nothing more than repeat all the goofy NRA talking points. We both know those are mostly crap

by definition you *can't* take advantage of it. the loophole is meant for the one-time sale of a gun. not to sell a lot of guns and not to go into business and avoid the law. you try to do that, you are breaking the law. arrest them.

and if you think i'm parakeeting then you are not listening.

we can do away with the gun show loophole by giving free background checks at the gun show. should be easy enough. miss that part of my statement, didja?

i said not many are used in crimes and invited you to google it up and *not* parakeet the anti-gun crowd 40% bullshit figure.

i also said we need to revamp the entire background check system and allow for other "lists" and ensure due process is included. you hear the NRA say that one much, doya's?

next time read what i say before responding. it makes this much smoother.

You're intentionally ignoring so much. If there was just one seller, your silly remarks about taking advantage might make sense. There are as many sellers as there are buyers. No way to keep track on how many each of them sell, especially since there is no paperwork or requirement for any record keeping.

Free background checks would be great, but unless they are required, who would bother, and why should they bother?

I tried googling it, but since the NRA owned congressmen made it illegal for records to be kept on that type thing, there are no credible reports that are much less than 20 years old.

Yes you are parroting their crap.

again - you're not listening to me. you're hearing what you want out of what i am saying then instead of trying to understand, *i'm* the one ignoring a bunch.

how many people sell guns via the gun show loophole? you need to tell me this at this point cause to date, you have not that i have seen. please do not run to the 40% bullshit either. that would be you parroting their crap. also - if no way to keep track where did their 40% come from?

and i said free background checks SO THEY DO GET DONE - not as an option. i am saying just do away with the damn gun show loophole because if you're at a gun show, someone can do it for you. if $25 is an issue, have a voucher program to let them get it done for free.

THIRD FUCKING TIME I SAID THIS - you going to mis-read me again?

i also said people who are writing the laws need to be tested and certified to do so to AVOID it becoming a political issue. together the NRA and the gov needs to come up with a new system that will satisfy as many as possible but no - not all will be happy. never gonna happen but we do need to do more than we are doing today.

but the background checks we have are pointless as it stands. those need to have some meat into them AND they need to follow due process. period.

now if someone is selling guns FOR A LIVING via this loophole - that is already illegal - prosecute. i've said this before as well but you fly by it to keep saying i'm not listening *to you*. what good do more laws do if you're not utilizing the ones in place for this already?

i've pointed out various ideas i've had about getting a licenses/class first that would piss off many gun owners - but hey - i'm a party-liner dude!
i've pointed out you can easily do away with the gun show loophole cause you're at a gun show - hit any dealer there and they can and will do one for you for $25.
i've pointed out an educational system for both law makers and the average user that needs to be in place

but you've bypassed all of that and said google stumped you.

great. when you want to listen let me know cause i've FAR FROM parkeeted jack nor shit about the NRA party lines.

The 40% you keep mentioning certainly didn't come from me, and I've never used it in this subject. You are right about there being no way to know unless background checks are universally required. The way it is now, a person could make a very good living selling used guns because there is no record to tell how many guns he already sold. Of course, the cops could keep him under surveillance, and eventually build a case against him, but that won't happen with every individual seller, now will it? It's not unreasonable to expect background checks for EVERY gun that is sold by ANYONE.

trying to head off a common fallacy on the 40%. that's just utter bullshit and one of the reasons that "common sense" laws are so hard to come by. you can't inflate shit like that then turn around and ask the other side to "be honest".

they can keep an eye on people and people selling guns illegally happen all the time - but find them and put them in prison. trouble is, prison time is hard to come by for these crimes so it makes it more worth the risk.

background checks alone are simply not the answer. the background checks themselves must be improved and inclusive - however they must also follow due process. things like nofly and terror watch list remove due process completely and then go "but it's for a good cause".

never is it for a good cause to remove our rights. you'd think bush's homeland security would drive that point home.

so you do away with the loophole - fine. i'll go with that cause it's pretty easy to get the wasted background check done anyway. now tell me - will illegal gun sales slow down much? stop? from what i've researched, not really.

if in that "40%" number they are including guns from felons and the like, that will continue regardless of a loophole or not. so blocking this - what affect does it really have overall?

nothing. it honestly doesn't change the way a criminal will acquire a gun. so if the left gets what they ask for and this is done away with - will they call their job done or move onto the next law they must have their way?

#2. every time. which makes the NRA and gun supporters fight them tooth and nail cause if they don't you wind up with stupid california laws that says you need a license to buy bullets now. or shotguns can't carry more than 3 rounds. or mags can be thrown away, just don't make them more than 8 capacity...

we need so much more than doing away with a law that in the end doesn't affect this much at all but look at the attention it actually gets.

I never heard that 40% anywhere but from you. 3 rounds in a shotgun has been the law since I was a kid. As long as EVERY effort to prevent needed and reasonable regulation is the goal of gun nuts, there will be opposition to them.

 

[SeaGal]

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd.

All right, thank you for answering.

That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

 

[iceberg]

by definition you *can't* take advantage of it. the loophole is meant for the one-time sale of a gun. not to sell a lot of guns and not to go into business and avoid the law. you try to do that, you are breaking the law. arrest them.

and if you think i'm parakeeting then you are not listening.

we can do away with the gun show loophole by giving free background checks at the gun show. should be easy enough. miss that part of my statement, didja?

i said not many are used in crimes and invited you to google it up and *not* parakeet the anti-gun crowd 40% bullshit figure.

i also said we need to revamp the entire background check system and allow for other "lists" and ensure due process is included. you hear the NRA say that one much, doya's?

next time read what i say before responding. it makes this much smoother.

You're intentionally ignoring so much. If there was just one seller, your silly remarks about taking advantage might make sense. There are as many sellers as there are buyers. No way to keep track on how many each of them sell, especially since there is no paperwork or requirement for any record keeping.

Free background checks would be great, but unless they are required, who would bother, and why should they bother?

I tried googling it, but since the NRA owned congressmen made it illegal for records to be kept on that type thing, there are no credible reports that are much less than 20 years old.

Yes you are parroting their crap.

again - you're not listening to me. you're hearing what you want out of what i am saying then instead of trying to understand, *i'm* the one ignoring a bunch.

how many people sell guns via the gun show loophole? you need to tell me this at this point cause to date, you have not that i have seen. please do not run to the 40% bullshit either. that would be you parroting their crap. also - if no way to keep track where did their 40% come from?

and i said free background checks SO THEY DO GET DONE - not as an option. i am saying just do away with the damn gun show loophole because if you're at a gun show, someone can do it for you. if $25 is an issue, have a voucher program to let them get it done for free.

THIRD FUCKING TIME I SAID THIS - you going to mis-read me again?

i also said people who are writing the laws need to be tested and certified to do so to AVOID it becoming a political issue. together the NRA and the gov needs to come up with a new system that will satisfy as many as possible but no - not all will be happy. never gonna happen but we do need to do more than we are doing today.

but the background checks we have are pointless as it stands. those need to have some meat into them AND they need to follow due process. period.

now if someone is selling guns FOR A LIVING via this loophole - that is already illegal - prosecute. i've said this before as well but you fly by it to keep saying i'm not listening *to you*. what good do more laws do if you're not utilizing the ones in place for this already?

i've pointed out various ideas i've had about getting a licenses/class first that would piss off many gun owners - but hey - i'm a party-liner dude!
i've pointed out you can easily do away with the gun show loophole cause you're at a gun show - hit any dealer there and they can and will do one for you for $25.
i've pointed out an educational system for both law makers and the average user that needs to be in place

but you've bypassed all of that and said google stumped you.

great. when you want to listen let me know cause i've FAR FROM parkeeted jack nor shit about the NRA party lines.

The 40% you keep mentioning certainly didn't come from me, and I've never used it in this subject. You are right about there being no way to know unless background checks are universally required. The way it is now, a person could make a very good living selling used guns because there is no record to tell how many guns he already sold. Of course, the cops could keep him under surveillance, and eventually build a case against him, but that won't happen with every individual seller, now will it? It's not unreasonable to expect background checks for EVERY gun that is sold by ANYONE.

trying to head off a common fallacy on the 40%. that's just utter bullshit and one of the reasons that "common sense" laws are so hard to come by. you can't inflate shit like that then turn around and ask the other side to "be honest".

they can keep an eye on people and people selling guns illegally happen all the time - but find them and put them in prison. trouble is, prison time is hard to come by for these crimes so it makes it more worth the risk.

background checks alone are simply not the answer. the background checks themselves must be improved and inclusive - however they must also follow due process. things like nofly and terror watch list remove due process completely and then go "but it's for a good cause".

never is it for a good cause to remove our rights. you'd think bush's homeland security would drive that point home.

so you do away with the loophole - fine. i'll go with that cause it's pretty easy to get the wasted background check done anyway. now tell me - will illegal gun sales slow down much? stop? from what i've researched, not really.

if in that "40%" number they are including guns from felons and the like, that will continue regardless of a loophole or not. so blocking this - what affect does it really have overall?

nothing. it honestly doesn't change the way a criminal will acquire a gun. so if the left gets what they ask for and this is done away with - will they call their job done or move onto the next law they must have their way?

#2. every time. which makes the NRA and gun supporters fight them tooth and nail cause if they don't you wind up with stupid california laws that says you need a license to buy bullets now. or shotguns can't carry more than 3 rounds. or mags can be thrown away, just don't make them more than 8 capacity...

we need so much more than doing away with a law that in the end doesn't affect this much at all but look at the attention it actually gets.

I never heard that 40% anywhere but from you. 3 rounds in a shotgun has been the law since I was a kid. As long as EVERY effort to prevent needed and reasonable regulation is the goal of gun nuts, there will be opposition to them.

then you never heard obama talk about guns. this was his rally cry.

and the # of rounds in a gun depends on the gun. making laws to lower that is something sorta new.

 

[Norman]

I am interested, wtf is meant by 2nd amendment being absolute? Does it mean you can own a portable nuke without a license?

I doubt anyone stands for that. That being said, the crazy leftist would have you believe that the line is such that the government is allowed to have nukes but a citizen owning a butter knife is just way over the line.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd.

All right, thank you for answering.

That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

 

[BULLDOG]

You're intentionally ignoring so much. If there was just one seller, your silly remarks about taking advantage might make sense. There are as many sellers as there are buyers. No way to keep track on how many each of them sell, especially since there is no paperwork or requirement for any record keeping.

Free background checks would be great, but unless they are required, who would bother, and why should they bother?

I tried googling it, but since the NRA owned congressmen made it illegal for records to be kept on that type thing, there are no credible reports that are much less than 20 years old.

Yes you are parroting their crap.

again - you're not listening to me. you're hearing what you want out of what i am saying then instead of trying to understand, *i'm* the one ignoring a bunch.

how many people sell guns via the gun show loophole? you need to tell me this at this point cause to date, you have not that i have seen. please do not run to the 40% bullshit either. that would be you parroting their crap. also - if no way to keep track where did their 40% come from?

and i said free background checks SO THEY DO GET DONE - not as an option. i am saying just do away with the damn gun show loophole because if you're at a gun show, someone can do it for you. if $25 is an issue, have a voucher program to let them get it done for free.

THIRD FUCKING TIME I SAID THIS - you going to mis-read me again?

i also said people who are writing the laws need to be tested and certified to do so to AVOID it becoming a political issue. together the NRA and the gov needs to come up with a new system that will satisfy as many as possible but no - not all will be happy. never gonna happen but we do need to do more than we are doing today.

but the background checks we have are pointless as it stands. those need to have some meat into them AND they need to follow due process. period.

now if someone is selling guns FOR A LIVING via this loophole - that is already illegal - prosecute. i've said this before as well but you fly by it to keep saying i'm not listening *to you*. what good do more laws do if you're not utilizing the ones in place for this already?

i've pointed out various ideas i've had about getting a licenses/class first that would piss off many gun owners - but hey - i'm a party-liner dude!
i've pointed out you can easily do away with the gun show loophole cause you're at a gun show - hit any dealer there and they can and will do one for you for $25.
i've pointed out an educational system for both law makers and the average user that needs to be in place

but you've bypassed all of that and said google stumped you.

great. when you want to listen let me know cause i've FAR FROM parkeeted jack nor shit about the NRA party lines.

The 40% you keep mentioning certainly didn't come from me, and I've never used it in this subject. You are right about there being no way to know unless background checks are universally required. The way it is now, a person could make a very good living selling used guns because there is no record to tell how many guns he already sold. Of course, the cops could keep him under surveillance, and eventually build a case against him, but that won't happen with every individual seller, now will it? It's not unreasonable to expect background checks for EVERY gun that is sold by ANYONE.

trying to head off a common fallacy on the 40%. that's just utter bullshit and one of the reasons that "common sense" laws are so hard to come by. you can't inflate shit like that then turn around and ask the other side to "be honest".

they can keep an eye on people and people selling guns illegally happen all the time - but find them and put them in prison. trouble is, prison time is hard to come by for these crimes so it makes it more worth the risk.

background checks alone are simply not the answer. the background checks themselves must be improved and inclusive - however they must also follow due process. things like nofly and terror watch list remove due process completely and then go "but it's for a good cause".

never is it for a good cause to remove our rights. you'd think bush's homeland security would drive that point home.

so you do away with the loophole - fine. i'll go with that cause it's pretty easy to get the wasted background check done anyway. now tell me - will illegal gun sales slow down much? stop? from what i've researched, not really.

if in that "40%" number they are including guns from felons and the like, that will continue regardless of a loophole or not. so blocking this - what affect does it really have overall?

nothing. it honestly doesn't change the way a criminal will acquire a gun. so if the left gets what they ask for and this is done away with - will they call their job done or move onto the next law they must have their way?

#2. every time. which makes the NRA and gun supporters fight them tooth and nail cause if they don't you wind up with stupid california laws that says you need a license to buy bullets now. or shotguns can't carry more than 3 rounds. or mags can be thrown away, just don't make them more than 8 capacity...

we need so much more than doing away with a law that in the end doesn't affect this much at all but look at the attention it actually gets.

I never heard that 40% anywhere but from you. 3 rounds in a shotgun has been the law since I was a kid. As long as EVERY effort to prevent needed and reasonable regulation is the goal of gun nuts, there will be opposition to them.

then you never heard obama talk about guns. this was his rally cry.

and the # of rounds in a gun depends on the gun. making laws to lower that is something sorta new.

Link?

 

[iceberg]

again - you're not listening to me. you're hearing what you want out of what i am saying then instead of trying to understand, *i'm* the one ignoring a bunch.

how many people sell guns via the gun show loophole? you need to tell me this at this point cause to date, you have not that i have seen. please do not run to the 40% bullshit either. that would be you parroting their crap. also - if no way to keep track where did their 40% come from?

and i said free background checks SO THEY DO GET DONE - not as an option. i am saying just do away with the damn gun show loophole because if you're at a gun show, someone can do it for you. if $25 is an issue, have a voucher program to let them get it done for free.

THIRD FUCKING TIME I SAID THIS - you going to mis-read me again?

i also said people who are writing the laws need to be tested and certified to do so to AVOID it becoming a political issue. together the NRA and the gov needs to come up with a new system that will satisfy as many as possible but no - not all will be happy. never gonna happen but we do need to do more than we are doing today.

but the background checks we have are pointless as it stands. those need to have some meat into them AND they need to follow due process. period.

now if someone is selling guns FOR A LIVING via this loophole - that is already illegal - prosecute. i've said this before as well but you fly by it to keep saying i'm not listening *to you*. what good do more laws do if you're not utilizing the ones in place for this already?

i've pointed out various ideas i've had about getting a licenses/class first that would piss off many gun owners - but hey - i'm a party-liner dude!
i've pointed out you can easily do away with the gun show loophole cause you're at a gun show - hit any dealer there and they can and will do one for you for $25.
i've pointed out an educational system for both law makers and the average user that needs to be in place

but you've bypassed all of that and said google stumped you.

great. when you want to listen let me know cause i've FAR FROM parkeeted jack nor shit about the NRA party lines.

The 40% you keep mentioning certainly didn't come from me, and I've never used it in this subject. You are right about there being no way to know unless background checks are universally required. The way it is now, a person could make a very good living selling used guns because there is no record to tell how many guns he already sold. Of course, the cops could keep him under surveillance, and eventually build a case against him, but that won't happen with every individual seller, now will it? It's not unreasonable to expect background checks for EVERY gun that is sold by ANYONE.

trying to head off a common fallacy on the 40%. that's just utter bullshit and one of the reasons that "common sense" laws are so hard to come by. you can't inflate shit like that then turn around and ask the other side to "be honest".

they can keep an eye on people and people selling guns illegally happen all the time - but find them and put them in prison. trouble is, prison time is hard to come by for these crimes so it makes it more worth the risk.

background checks alone are simply not the answer. the background checks themselves must be improved and inclusive - however they must also follow due process. things like nofly and terror watch list remove due process completely and then go "but it's for a good cause".

never is it for a good cause to remove our rights. you'd think bush's homeland security would drive that point home.

so you do away with the loophole - fine. i'll go with that cause it's pretty easy to get the wasted background check done anyway. now tell me - will illegal gun sales slow down much? stop? from what i've researched, not really.

if in that "40%" number they are including guns from felons and the like, that will continue regardless of a loophole or not. so blocking this - what affect does it really have overall?

nothing. it honestly doesn't change the way a criminal will acquire a gun. so if the left gets what they ask for and this is done away with - will they call their job done or move onto the next law they must have their way?

#2. every time. which makes the NRA and gun supporters fight them tooth and nail cause if they don't you wind up with stupid california laws that says you need a license to buy bullets now. or shotguns can't carry more than 3 rounds. or mags can be thrown away, just don't make them more than 8 capacity...

we need so much more than doing away with a law that in the end doesn't affect this much at all but look at the attention it actually gets.

I never heard that 40% anywhere but from you. 3 rounds in a shotgun has been the law since I was a kid. As long as EVERY effort to prevent needed and reasonable regulation is the goal of gun nuts, there will be opposition to them.

then you never heard obama talk about guns. this was his rally cry.

and the # of rounds in a gun depends on the gun. making laws to lower that is something sorta new.

Link?

Obama wrong on background checks

if you mean on shotgun cap, just look up pump action shotguns and tell me how many capacity they have.

 

[BULLDOG]

The 40% you keep mentioning certainly didn't come from me, and I've never used it in this subject. You are right about there being no way to know unless background checks are universally required. The way it is now, a person could make a very good living selling used guns because there is no record to tell how many guns he already sold. Of course, the cops could keep him under surveillance, and eventually build a case against him, but that won't happen with every individual seller, now will it? It's not unreasonable to expect background checks for EVERY gun that is sold by ANYONE.

trying to head off a common fallacy on the 40%. that's just utter bullshit and one of the reasons that "common sense" laws are so hard to come by. you can't inflate shit like that then turn around and ask the other side to "be honest".

they can keep an eye on people and people selling guns illegally happen all the time - but find them and put them in prison. trouble is, prison time is hard to come by for these crimes so it makes it more worth the risk.

background checks alone are simply not the answer. the background checks themselves must be improved and inclusive - however they must also follow due process. things like nofly and terror watch list remove due process completely and then go "but it's for a good cause".

never is it for a good cause to remove our rights. you'd think bush's homeland security would drive that point home.

so you do away with the loophole - fine. i'll go with that cause it's pretty easy to get the wasted background check done anyway. now tell me - will illegal gun sales slow down much? stop? from what i've researched, not really.

if in that "40%" number they are including guns from felons and the like, that will continue regardless of a loophole or not. so blocking this - what affect does it really have overall?

nothing. it honestly doesn't change the way a criminal will acquire a gun. so if the left gets what they ask for and this is done away with - will they call their job done or move onto the next law they must have their way?

#2. every time. which makes the NRA and gun supporters fight them tooth and nail cause if they don't you wind up with stupid california laws that says you need a license to buy bullets now. or shotguns can't carry more than 3 rounds. or mags can be thrown away, just don't make them more than 8 capacity...

we need so much more than doing away with a law that in the end doesn't affect this much at all but look at the attention it actually gets.

I never heard that 40% anywhere but from you. 3 rounds in a shotgun has been the law since I was a kid. As long as EVERY effort to prevent needed and reasonable regulation is the goal of gun nuts, there will be opposition to them.

then you never heard obama talk about guns. this was his rally cry.

and the # of rounds in a gun depends on the gun. making laws to lower that is something sorta new.

Link?

Obama wrong on background checks

if you mean on shotgun cap, just look up pump action shotguns and tell me how many capacity they have.

Yes, I know the capacity. I also know there must be a plug inserted for hunting that reduces that capacity.

 

[Correll]

Yes, I expect law abiding citizens to be responsible. Odd huh? My opinion doesn't change at all, I called you a liar for a reason, it's what you do. Unlike you I don't want to punish the law abiding among us. Nor do I ignore the fact that many gun related shootings are not with legal guns.

You call me a liar because you are a RWNJ, and that's hat you do. Not surprised you can never point out the specific lie you seem to reference.

I always say what you lied about. So that's another lie. You lied when you said the right is fighting for crazies to own guns and you lied when you said my opinion changes. The words are still there. Your little hate filled pea brain just can't do any better.

The NRA fought for every one of these people to be fully armed right up until the second they killed their first person. Don't tell me the right doesn't support arming crazies.

I thought that the NRA supported locking up crazy people.

I know I certainly do.


You claiming there were no warning signs for any of those whack jobs?

I'm sure there were lots of warning signs for each and every one of those nut jobs. I'm also saying the NRA and the right would have gone to court to support the right of any one of the above to have as many guns as they wanted right up until the instant they killed people.

So, two possible ways to address this are

a. Lock up crazy people where they can be prevented from hurting themselves or others and receive treatment for their mental illness.

or

b. Take away the rights of hundreds of millions of sane people to make it slightly more difficult for crazy people to get guns/or be forced to use improvised weapons to hurt people...



MMmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions...how to decide,

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Nobody wants dead people.

And just what do you (& those like you) consider reasonable controls??? They've had controls for awhile now and after every shooting, they revise and add to those controls......all without realizing more controls aren't working nor will they ever work.

The more those rights are being chipped away with increasing regulation IS the beginning steps of taking the guns away because those regulations won't fix the problems.

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses...and agree with the dangers of 'amending (nullifying) the Bill of Rights' through regulation.

The problem lies in that to folks like our friend here...

Yes, but you seem to blame everyone who doesn't follow the gun nut line for trying to steal your guns.

...this..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...is the 'gun nut line'.

So when do you think I first started trying to take your guns? You must think I'm a lot more powerful than I am, and you have no idea of what I think about your guns.

This isn't all about YOU personally, as you keep trying to make it. It's about the collective you's of the nation. As in....left, liberal, Democrat. But you, yes you personally-Bullshit Bulldog, keep repeating the same failed argument of Me, Myself, and I. Hunny, you are not that important nor powerful that even though you admit it, but still use it for some self delusion of grandeur.

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd.

All right, thank you for answering.

That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

Just how many background checks are going to stop all the senseless murders/shootings?????? Since nearly every one has been done by those who have obtained their weapons on the down low and never from legal routes?????

WTF good is background checks in those circumstances? Would it have stopped anything? Would it have saved anyone??? NO.......all it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them, but doesn't stop or hinder or effect the idiots.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody wants dead people.

And just what do you (& those like you) consider reasonable controls??? They've had controls for awhile now and after every shooting, they revise and add to those controls......all without realizing more controls aren't working nor will they ever work.

The more those rights are being chipped away with increasing regulation IS the beginning steps of taking the guns away because those regulations won't fix the problems.

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses...and agree with the dangers of 'amending (nullifying) the Bill of Rights' through regulation.

The problem lies in that to folks like our friend here...

Yes, but you seem to blame everyone who doesn't follow the gun nut line for trying to steal your guns.

...this..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...is the 'gun nut line'.

So when do you think I first started trying to take your guns? You must think I'm a lot more powerful than I am, and you have no idea of what I think about your guns.

This isn't all about YOU personally, as you keep trying to make it. It's about the collective you's of the nation. As in....left, liberal, Democrat. But you, yes you personally-Bullshit Bulldog, keep repeating the same failed argument of Me, Myself, and I. Hunny, you are not that important nor powerful that even though you admit it, but still use it for some self delusion of grandeur.

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd.

All right, thank you for answering.

That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

Just how many background checks are going to stop all the senseless murders/shootings?????? Since nearly every one has been done by those who have obtained their weapons on the down low and never from legal routes?????

WTF good is background checks in those circumstances? Would it have stopped anything? Would it have saved anyone??? NO.......all it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them, but doesn't stop or hinder or effect the idiots.

But it is about me personally. You cast the accusation that the entire left wing is actively trying to take everybody's guns, as well as a host of other things that I would never consider doing.Those accusations certainly include me, as well as every other liberal. You can't make such a widely blanketing statement, without including each and every person you include in the group.

Of course background checks will not stop ALL the senseless murders. No one thing will. Surely, you are smart enough to know that.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

but the right fought for each of them to have as many guns as they wanted right up until they killed someone

and yet you cast the same broad brush...........

Nobody wants dead people.

And just what do you (& those like you) consider reasonable controls??? They've had controls for awhile now and after every shooting, they revise and add to those controls......all without realizing more controls aren't working nor will they ever work.

The more those rights are being chipped away with increasing regulation IS the beginning steps of taking the guns away because those regulations won't fix the problems.

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses...and agree with the dangers of 'amending (nullifying) the Bill of Rights' through regulation.

The problem lies in that to folks like our friend here...

Yes, but you seem to blame everyone who doesn't follow the gun nut line for trying to steal your guns.

...this..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...is the 'gun nut line'.

So when do you think I first started trying to take your guns? You must think I'm a lot more powerful than I am, and you have no idea of what I think about your guns.

This isn't all about YOU personally, as you keep trying to make it. It's about the collective you's of the nation. As in....left, liberal, Democrat. But you, yes you personally-Bullshit Bulldog, keep repeating the same failed argument of Me, Myself, and I. Hunny, you are not that important nor powerful that even though you admit it, but still use it for some self delusion of grandeur.

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd.

All right, thank you for answering.

That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

Just how many background checks are going to stop all the senseless murders/shootings?????? Since nearly every one has been done by those who have obtained their weapons on the down low and never from legal routes?????

WTF good is background checks in those circumstances? Would it have stopped anything? Would it have saved anyone??? NO.......all it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them, but doesn't stop or hinder or effect the idiots.

But it is about me personally. You cast the accusation that the entire left wing is actively trying to take everybody's guns, as well as a host of other things that I would never consider doing. Those accusations certainly include me, as well as every other liberal. You can't make such a widely blanketing statement, without including each and every person you include in the group.

Of course background checks will not stop ALL the senseless murders. No one thing will. Surely, you are smart enough to know that.

ok, point taken but that's not really the argument, now is it? And NO, I have never said anywhere that anyone is trying to take my guns away from me or anyone else. But there are plenty of left wingers that continue to make it more & more difficult.

So if background checks won't stop the senseless murders or tragic accidents......why do you want more?

Please give 3 incidences where guns were used that background checks would have stopped?

 

[bendog]

.
Before replying to just the title, read the OP, it's not what you think.

People of reason look upon gun deaths as tragic. But as we have often observed, that is not always the case with conservatives. They, more often than not, use the news report as an opportunity to push their agenda to deregulate gun sales, open carry, and their opposition to background checks.

However, in the past, I have been “reprimanded” by Second Amendment fanatics (the majority of which are conservatives) for “politicizing a tragedy” with OPs that have advocated sensible gun regulations.

But, after decades of the NRA pumping millions-of-dollars into political candidates’ campaigns who oppose common sense gun laws, how can gun deaths and the need for common sense gun regulations be anything but political?

For example, just a few days ago, an eighteen-year-old received a gun from his girlfriend’s father as a graduation present. The youth was considered experienced in handling fire arms. Unfortunately, within a short period of hours, while he treated the weapon like a toy, he shot and killed his girlfriend. An innocent victim of carelessness killed by a “responsible” gun owner.

As so often happens, we have another tragic gun death caused by an individual who was considered, by himself and those around him, responsible with guns. And Second Amendment fanatics still want guns in the hands of as many people as possible.

It is alarming the frequency of reports of responsible gun owners leaving their “toys” out in the open, fully loaded, for small children to find, and results in a death or serious injury. Like the news articles concerning women who have been shot with their own guns by their own small children. The innocent victims of carelessness here are the children. They will always remember they either killed or wounded their own mothers.

Incidents like those above happen with alarming regularity. Much, much more often that a good-guy-with-a-gun saves a life.

However, when it come to politicizing a tragedy, conservatives are selective in their criticism. They will defend the Big Orange Head’s politicizing of the London terror attack yesterday. Rather than show some class and humility and offer comfort and support, Big Orange used this attack to tout his travel ban, push the courts to reinstate it, and use a lie to condemn London’s mayor, once again embarrassing the American people.

The comments in this OP are based on the articles at the links below.

It is expected the conservatives' responses will be their typical BS, because they will ignore the facts at these links, choosing, as they always do, to selectively apply their double-standards.

Tenn. teen accidentally kills girlfriend with graduation present

Toddler reaches into purse and gun goes off, killing mom

Pro-gun Jamie Gilt is shot by her four-year-old son in Putnam County, Florida | Daily Mail Online

Incidents of toddlers shooting others or themselves increasing, data shows

US embassy in London directly contradicts Trump's Twitter attack on London's mayor

And the following link contradicts every reason and excuse offered up by Second Amendment fanatics and the NRA:

What Trump Doesn't Understand About Gun Control in Great Britain

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


View attachment 131046


.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by politicizing. Trump politicized the London attacks to try and rally his base against the possible adverse court ruling on his "muslim ban," and to trot out his and his neonazi sons' racist dog whistles to also incite the racist element of his base. But the politicizing arises from the intentional misrepresentation of facts - the London attackers were promptly killed, as opposed to in San Bernidino for example, and there's no rational similarity comparison to immigration in the UK and here.

News reports of actual facts are not politicizing an issue.

Imo some gun regulation supporters have politicized gun crimes by making unsupported claims that some gun ban would have prevented an attack. There's never been actual support for that. NYC has a combination of strict policing, harsh sentencing and gun restrictions that appear to make a difference, but NYC also is a bit unique societally and geographically.

 

[bendog]

but the right fought for each of them to have as many guns as they wanted right up until they killed someone

and yet you cast the same broad brush...........

Nobody wants dead people.

And just what do you (& those like you) consider reasonable controls??? They've had controls for awhile now and after every shooting, they revise and add to those controls......all without realizing more controls aren't working nor will they ever work.

The more those rights are being chipped away with increasing regulation IS the beginning steps of taking the guns away because those regulations won't fix the problems.

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses...and agree with the dangers of 'amending (nullifying) the Bill of Rights' through regulation.

The problem lies in that to folks like our friend here...

Yes, but you seem to blame everyone who doesn't follow the gun nut line for trying to steal your guns.

...this..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...is the 'gun nut line'.

So when do you think I first started trying to take your guns? You must think I'm a lot more powerful than I am, and you have no idea of what I think about your guns.

This isn't all about YOU personally, as you keep trying to make it. It's about the collective you's of the nation. As in....left, liberal, Democrat. But you, yes you personally-Bullshit Bulldog, keep repeating the same failed argument of Me, Myself, and I. Hunny, you are not that important nor powerful that even though you admit it, but still use it for some self delusion of grandeur.

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd.

All right, thank you for answering.

That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

Just how many background checks are going to stop all the senseless murders/shootings?????? Since nearly every one has been done by those who have obtained their weapons on the down low and never from legal routes?????

WTF good is background checks in those circumstances? Would it have stopped anything? Would it have saved anyone??? NO.......all it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them, but doesn't stop or hinder or effect the idiots.

But it is about me personally. You cast the accusation that the entire left wing is actively trying to take everybody's guns, as well as a host of other things that I would never consider doing. Those accusations certainly include me, as well as every other liberal. You can't make such a widely blanketing statement, without including each and every person you include in the group.

Of course background checks will not stop ALL the senseless murders. No one thing will. Surely, you are smart enough to know that.

ok, point taken but that's not really the argument, now is it? And NO, I have never said anywhere that anyone is trying to take my guns away from me or anyone else. But there are plenty of left wingers that continue to make it more & more difficult.

So if background checks won't stop the senseless murders or tragic accidents......why do you want more?

Please give 3 incidences where guns were used that background checks would have stopped?

It is the balancing, which btw is ok under Heller. If it can be shown that checks make it appreciably harder for an "evil doer" to get a firearm, then the imposition of making you or I wait a short period may be reasonable.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

but the right fought for each of them to have as many guns as they wanted right up until they killed someone

and yet you cast the same broad brush...........

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses...and agree with the dangers of 'amending (nullifying) the Bill of Rights' through regulation.

The problem lies in that to folks like our friend here...
...this..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...is the 'gun nut line'.

So when do you think I first started trying to take your guns? You must think I'm a lot more powerful than I am, and you have no idea of what I think about your guns.

This isn't all about YOU personally, as you keep trying to make it. It's about the collective you's of the nation. As in....left, liberal, Democrat. But you, yes you personally-Bullshit Bulldog, keep repeating the same failed argument of Me, Myself, and I. Hunny, you are not that important nor powerful that even though you admit it, but still use it for some self delusion of grandeur.

All right, thank you for answering.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

Just how many background checks are going to stop all the senseless murders/shootings?????? Since nearly every one has been done by those who have obtained their weapons on the down low and never from legal routes?????

WTF good is background checks in those circumstances? Would it have stopped anything? Would it have saved anyone??? NO.......all it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them, but doesn't stop or hinder or effect the idiots.

But it is about me personally. You cast the accusation that the entire left wing is actively trying to take everybody's guns, as well as a host of other things that I would never consider doing. Those accusations certainly include me, as well as every other liberal. You can't make such a widely blanketing statement, without including each and every person you include in the group.

Of course background checks will not stop ALL the senseless murders. No one thing will. Surely, you are smart enough to know that.

ok, point taken but that's not really the argument, now is it? And NO, I have never said anywhere that anyone is trying to take my guns away from me or anyone else. But there are plenty of left wingers that continue to make it more & more difficult.

So if background checks won't stop the senseless murders or tragic accidents......why do you want more?

Please give 3 incidences where guns were used that background checks would have stopped?

It is the balancing, which btw is ok under Heller. If it can be shown that checks make it appreciably harder for an "evil doer" to get a firearm, then the imposition of making you or I wait a short period may be reasonable.

But those evil doer's still get guns.....because they don't go thru legal & proper means to get them, like you or I do. There is already background checks in place and are failing to stop anything.......so why advocate for more???

Once again.......as in the incidences sited in the OP......all were legal gun owners, but because they weren't paying attention......someone got shot.

How many school shootings have there been? Long before & since Columbine....hundreds??? Maybe thousands???? In every one of those (or nearly every one), they were kids that stole their parents guns. The parents obtained their arms legally with or without B/G checks.

Or any other crimes where guns were used? The point is this........criminals &/or potential criminals don't go thru legal channels to obtain their weapons and that's why they are CRIMINALS. So in reality those checks are only making it more difficult for legal & responsible citizens to obtain guns.

About the one & only thing that would have stopped a good measure of those tragedy's from ever happening........would have been safety EDUCATION

 

[BULLDOG]

but the right fought for each of them to have as many guns as they wanted right up until they killed someone

and yet you cast the same broad brush...........

Nobody wants dead people.

And just what do you (& those like you) consider reasonable controls??? They've had controls for awhile now and after every shooting, they revise and add to those controls......all without realizing more controls aren't working nor will they ever work.

The more those rights are being chipped away with increasing regulation IS the beginning steps of taking the guns away because those regulations won't fix the problems.

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses...and agree with the dangers of 'amending (nullifying) the Bill of Rights' through regulation.

The problem lies in that to folks like our friend here...

Yes, but you seem to blame everyone who doesn't follow the gun nut line for trying to steal your guns.

...this..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...is the 'gun nut line'.

So when do you think I first started trying to take your guns? You must think I'm a lot more powerful than I am, and you have no idea of what I think about your guns.

This isn't all about YOU personally, as you keep trying to make it. It's about the collective you's of the nation. As in....left, liberal, Democrat. But you, yes you personally-Bullshit Bulldog, keep repeating the same failed argument of Me, Myself, and I. Hunny, you are not that important nor powerful that even though you admit it, but still use it for some self delusion of grandeur.

I have guns myself. I'm a supporter of the 2nd.

All right, thank you for answering.

That right, however, is not absolute. Reasonable regulation is certainly acceptable and necessary.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

Just how many background checks are going to stop all the senseless murders/shootings?????? Since nearly every one has been done by those who have obtained their weapons on the down low and never from legal routes?????

WTF good is background checks in those circumstances? Would it have stopped anything? Would it have saved anyone??? NO.......all it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them, but doesn't stop or hinder or effect the idiots.

But it is about me personally. You cast the accusation that the entire left wing is actively trying to take everybody's guns, as well as a host of other things that I would never consider doing. Those accusations certainly include me, as well as every other liberal. You can't make such a widely blanketing statement, without including each and every person you include in the group.

Of course background checks will not stop ALL the senseless murders. No one thing will. Surely, you are smart enough to know that.

ok, point taken but that's not really the argument, now is it? And NO, I have never said anywhere that anyone is trying to take my guns away from me or anyone else. But there are plenty of left wingers that continue to make it more & more difficult.

So if background checks won't stop the senseless murders or tragic accidents......why do you want more?

Please give 3 incidences where guns were used that background checks would have stopped?

Again, it's silly to think any one action will stop all senseless murders or tragic accidents, but universal background checks will reduce them.
Like you, I'm just another anonymous poster on a message board, and I don't have a list of 3 specific incidents, but it's reasonable to believe they and many more exist.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

but the right fought for each of them to have as many guns as they wanted right up until they killed someone

and yet you cast the same broad brush...........

I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned responses...and agree with the dangers of 'amending (nullifying) the Bill of Rights' through regulation.

The problem lies in that to folks like our friend here...
...this..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."...is the 'gun nut line'.

So when do you think I first started trying to take your guns? You must think I'm a lot more powerful than I am, and you have no idea of what I think about your guns.

This isn't all about YOU personally, as you keep trying to make it. It's about the collective you's of the nation. As in....left, liberal, Democrat. But you, yes you personally-Bullshit Bulldog, keep repeating the same failed argument of Me, Myself, and I. Hunny, you are not that important nor powerful that even though you admit it, but still use it for some self delusion of grandeur.

All right, thank you for answering.

Beyond the current regulations, which already make 2A rights 'not absolute' what further regulations do you believe to be acceptable and necessary?

Universal background checks.

Just how many background checks are going to stop all the senseless murders/shootings?????? Since nearly every one has been done by those who have obtained their weapons on the down low and never from legal routes?????

WTF good is background checks in those circumstances? Would it have stopped anything? Would it have saved anyone??? NO.......all it does is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them, but doesn't stop or hinder or effect the idiots.

But it is about me personally. You cast the accusation that the entire left wing is actively trying to take everybody's guns, as well as a host of other things that I would never consider doing. Those accusations certainly include me, as well as every other liberal. You can't make such a widely blanketing statement, without including each and every person you include in the group.

Of course background checks will not stop ALL the senseless murders. No one thing will. Surely, you are smart enough to know that.

ok, point taken but that's not really the argument, now is it? And NO, I have never said anywhere that anyone is trying to take my guns away from me or anyone else. But there are plenty of left wingers that continue to make it more & more difficult.

So if background checks won't stop the senseless murders or tragic accidents......why do you want more?

Please give 3 incidences where guns were used that background checks would have stopped?

Again, it's silly to think any one action will stop all senseless murders or tragic accidents, but universal background checks will reduce them.
Like you, I'm just another anonymous poster on a message board, and I don't have a list of 3 specific incidents, but it's reasonable to believe they and many more exist.

No, nothing will stop all of them. But I still don't see how more background checks will make any difference. As I've stated, those checks haven't stopped or reduced anything yet, so having more checks isn't going to do any more good.

But those evil doer's still get guns.....because they don't go thru legal & proper means to get them, like you or I do. There is already background checks in place and are failing to stop anything.......so why advocate for more???

Once again.......as in the incidences sited in the OP......all were legal gun owners, but because they weren't paying attention......someone got shot.

How many school shootings have there been? Long before & since Columbine....hundreds??? Maybe thousands???? In every one of those (or nearly every one), they were kids that stole their parents guns. The parents obtained their arms legally with or without B/G checks.

Or any other crimes where guns were used? The point is this........criminals &/or potential criminals don't go thru legal channels to obtain their weapons and that's why they are CRIMINALS. So in reality those checks are only making it more difficult for legal & responsible citizens to obtain guns.