Odessa shooter had previous contact with police, the FBI knew him, he failed gun background check

[candycorn]

Not allowing mentally ill people to buy guns in the parking lot of a store that refused to sell the whack job the gun in the first place isn’t the government controlling it’s people. It’s the government protecting the people.

Your paranoia is hilarious.

We already have laws for both...you dumb ass. There is no paranoia here, there is an understanding of history and human nature.......

So the guy selling the gun out of his trunk has to do a background check on the person buying it?

No, moron, not if it is his private property....... but the criminal knows that they can't buy, own or carry a gun, and when caught with the gun, can already be arrested and convicted for it.....we already have this covered.

12 mass public shootings in 2018...... 93 killed.

12 crazy people out of 320 million....

Knives kill over 1,500 people every year...

Bees, Wasps, Dogs, Lawn mowers kill more people every year than mass shooters do....

Do you want to ban dogs? Since they are deadlier than guns used in mass public shootings?

Afraid of Snakes? Wasps and Dogs Are Deadlier

Of the 1,610 people killed in encounters with animals between 2008 and 2015,

478 were killed by hornets, wasps and bees,

and 272 by dogs, according to a study published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. Snakes, spiders and scorpions were responsible for 99 deaths over the eight years.

Thanks for confirming you were lying earlier. We all knew it but it was good to hear you admit it.

So there is no law against mentally ill people to buy guns in the parking lot of a store that refused to sell the whack job the gun in the first place. Thanks for clearing that up. Hopefully you’ll try to be more honest in the future but we both know you’re not capable.

We need to close that loophole and do background checks on anyone buying a firearm.

It’s that simple.

I’m really perplexed at the burning desire you have to avoid background checks. It seems as though the only ones who would have a problem with someone else passing one is if they too were mentally incompetent and crazy.

Moron...... it is against the law for someone who fails a background check to buy a gun from anyone ....you doofus. There is no loophole...if you fail a background check you already know you can't buy, own or carry a gun.....no loophole.

Since Background checks have already failed over and over again....and criminals avoid them by using straw buyers, people who can pass any background check, and mass public shooters pass background checks or get their guns illegally....

You can't show any benefit to background checks.......

They violate the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, and the 5th Amendment.....but as a fascist, you don't care about individual human Rights...those mass graves gotta be filled....

Its also against the law to shoot people for no reason.
Yet it happens.

So by your logic, we shouldn’t have laws against shooting people.

We need to have every gun sale go through the same rigorous (however you define rigorous) background checks that are done in retail establishments. If they are so frilvilous and won’t keep your fellow paranoid whack jobs and Islamic terrorists in sleeper cells from buying as many guns as they or their Mullahs can afford….why do you care that they are done?

 

[2aguy]

Guns are a Right, cars are not......governments throughout history have registered guns so they can be confiscated, and we have seen those same governments commit mass murder.....the vaunted Europeans murdered 12 million men, women and children after they confiscated guns.....

No, they murdered 12 million people because they had a war and there were too many guns floating about...

Wow... what a dummy.

12 mass public shootings in 2018...

Nope, it was 323... we've been over this.

Tell you what... since all your numbers are unadulterated NRA bullshit I'm going to ignore, how about not wasting my time with them.

No, moron.....they murdered 12 million people because the European countries first registered the guns of normal people, then confiscated those guns...so when the nazis took control, they were helpless to stop them.....

12 mass public shootings in 2018, not 323...... gang members shooting each other at a party over a dice game is not a mass public shooting, you doofus....

Mother Jones....anti-gun, left wing, has the list of all mass public shootings...

US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Total murders by mass public shooters...1982-2017
795


knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956
2015....1,589
2016....1,632
2017....1,591

Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285

---------



US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2018... 12

2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1

 

[JoeB131]

No, moron.....they murdered 12 million people because the European countries first registered the guns of normal people, then confiscated those guns...so when the nazis took control, they were helpless to stop them.....

Uh, no, guy, here's what happened.

The people in those countries had plenty of guns... but the Nazis had tanks, and most of them were, "Oh, you're taking the Jews away? Awesome, we hate those guys."

True story. EVERY COUNTRY Germany occupied had people who were happy to help with the holocaust. That's what happens when you have 2000 years of telling people that the Jews killed your magic God-man.

 

[2aguy]

We already have laws for both...you dumb ass. There is no paranoia here, there is an understanding of history and human nature.......

So the guy selling the gun out of his trunk has to do a background check on the person buying it?

No, moron, not if it is his private property....... but the criminal knows that they can't buy, own or carry a gun, and when caught with the gun, can already be arrested and convicted for it.....we already have this covered.

12 mass public shootings in 2018...... 93 killed.

12 crazy people out of 320 million....

Knives kill over 1,500 people every year...

Bees, Wasps, Dogs, Lawn mowers kill more people every year than mass shooters do....

Do you want to ban dogs? Since they are deadlier than guns used in mass public shootings?

Afraid of Snakes? Wasps and Dogs Are Deadlier

Of the 1,610 people killed in encounters with animals between 2008 and 2015,

478 were killed by hornets, wasps and bees,

and 272 by dogs, according to a study published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. Snakes, spiders and scorpions were responsible for 99 deaths over the eight years.

Thanks for confirming you were lying earlier. We all knew it but it was good to hear you admit it.

So there is no law against mentally ill people to buy guns in the parking lot of a store that refused to sell the whack job the gun in the first place. Thanks for clearing that up. Hopefully you’ll try to be more honest in the future but we both know you’re not capable.

We need to close that loophole and do background checks on anyone buying a firearm.

It’s that simple.

I’m really perplexed at the burning desire you have to avoid background checks. It seems as though the only ones who would have a problem with someone else passing one is if they too were mentally incompetent and crazy.

Moron...... it is against the law for someone who fails a background check to buy a gun from anyone ....you doofus. There is no loophole...if you fail a background check you already know you can't buy, own or carry a gun.....no loophole.

Since Background checks have already failed over and over again....and criminals avoid them by using straw buyers, people who can pass any background check, and mass public shooters pass background checks or get their guns illegally....

You can't show any benefit to background checks.......

They violate the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, and the 5th Amendment.....but as a fascist, you don't care about individual human Rights...those mass graves gotta be filled....

Its also against the law to shoot people for no reason.
Yet it happens.

So by your logic, we shouldn’t have laws against shooting people.

We need to have every gun sale go through the same rigorous (however you define rigorous) background checks that are done in retail establishments. If they are so frilvilous and won’t keep your fellow paranoid whack jobs and Islamic terrorists in sleeper cells from buying as many guns as they or their Mullahs can afford….why do you care that they are done?

So by your logic, we shouldn’t have laws against shooting people


That stupid argument...again....really? Doofus...laws don't stop crime, they define legal and illegal behavior and set the punishment for illegal behavior. You want to Pre-Crime normal people who own guns while not doing anything to actually stop gun criminals....and then, since you support democrats, you want to let repeat gun offenders out of prison where they will then go on to get more illegal guns and shoot people....you are the problem, not me.

And it has been found out the guy who sold the gun to the Odessa shooter did so illegally, which now means your call for "rigorous" background checks wouldn't have happened because he was selling the gun illegally already....you dumb doofus. This guy selling illegal guns would not have done any background check...you doofus....because he was already willling to sell the gun, knowingly, illegally.....you doofus.

I care because they keep normal people from getting guns........ universal background checks for private, legal sales will cost normal people more money for background checks criminals won't do.....

Also, the background check laws are now designed to make criminals out of normal gun owners....you doofus...

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

 

[2aguy]

No, moron.....they murdered 12 million people because the European countries first registered the guns of normal people, then confiscated those guns...so when the nazis took control, they were helpless to stop them.....

Uh, no, guy, here's what happened.

The people in those countries had plenty of guns... but the Nazis had tanks, and most of them were, "Oh, you're taking the Jews away? Awesome, we hate those guys."

True story. EVERY COUNTRY Germany occupied had people who were happy to help with the holocaust. That's what happens when you have 2000 years of telling people that the Jews killed your magic God-man.

No...moron..... normal people had their guns first registered, then confiscated, then, when the socialist antifa...I mean brown shirts, beat the crap out of their political enemies, with the police standing by in baltimore and seattle, I mean Berlin and Germany, no normal person could stop them.....allowing the socialists to take control.....

Then, when the weak armies of Europe fell to the socialists, they had no guns to resist the occupation......except for Switzerland, a country not invaded because their people had guns.....

THE SWISS WERE PREPARED TO FIGHT FACISM TO THE BITTER END | FRONTLINE | PBS



That is why the Nazis despised Switzerland. Joseph Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" where "sentiment has turned very much against us." Adolf Hitler decided that "all the rubbish of small nations still existing in Europe must be liquidated," even if it meant he would later "be attacked as the 'Butcher of the Swiss.'"



The 1940 Nazi invasion plan, Operation Tannenbaum, was not executed, and SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot. This did not stop the Gestapo from preparing lists of Swiss to be liquidated once the Nazis overran the country.



The other European nations were easily toppled and had little means to wage a partisan war against the occupation. Once their standing armies were defeated, the governments capitulated and the populaces were defenseless.



Only in Switzerland was the entire populace armed and prepared to wage a relentless guerrilla war against an invader. When the war began in 1939, Switzerland mobilized 435,000 citizen soldiers out of a population of 4.2 million. Production figures for Swiss service rifles, which had firepower equal to those of the Germans, demonstrate an ample supply of small arms. Swiss militiamen were instructed to disregard any alleged "official" surrender as enemy propaganda and, if necessary, to fight individually. This meant that a nation of sharpshooters would be sniping at German soldiers at long ranges from every mountain.



While neutral, Switzerland was prepared to fight a Nazi invasion to the end. The celebrated Swiss Gen. Henri Guisan developed the strategy known as defense du reduit--an initial opposition followed by a retreat into the Alps, where a relentless war to the death would be waged. Most Swiss strongly opposed Nazism. Death sentences were issued for fifth-column activities, and proclamations against anti-Semitism were passed at various official levels. There was no Holocaust on Swiss soil, something that can not be said for France, the Netherlands, Poland or most of Europe.

 

[JoeB131]

Then, when the weak armies of Europe fell to the socialists, they had no guns to resist the occupation......except for Switzerland, a country not invaded because their people had guns.....

Nobody invaded Switzerland because there was no tactical advantage to invading it. Same reason why no one invaded Turkey, Sweden, or Spain.

Dumb-asses like you think that the Axis just invaded places for fun.

 

[JoeB131]

No...moron..... normal people had their guns first registered, then confiscated, then, when the socialist antifa...I mean brown shirts, beat the crap out of their political enemies, with the police standing by in baltimore and seattle, I mean Berlin and Germany, no normal person could stop them.....allowing the socialists to take control.....

Uh, guys, here's the thing. Hitler was MASSIVELY POPULAR. The problem with a lot of lazy historians is they treat Hitler like he was an aberration. He wasn't. He was actually pretty reflective of how Germans saw the world.

Germans had a SHITLOAD of personal guns before the Nazis came to power. The Nazis actually repealed the gun restrictions the Weimar Republic tried to impose. And those Germans never, ever used those guns to fight the Nazis. When the Nazis came for the Jews, they average German cheered, because they hated the Jews.

They fought for Hitler to the last old man and little boy in the volksgrennideirs.

The guy who brought gun control to Germany? Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the confiscation of all privately owned guns in the Western occupation zones.

 

[2aguy]

No...moron..... normal people had their guns first registered, then confiscated, then, when the socialist antifa...I mean brown shirts, beat the crap out of their political enemies, with the police standing by in baltimore and seattle, I mean Berlin and Germany, no normal person could stop them.....allowing the socialists to take control.....

Uh, guys, here's the thing. Hitler was MASSIVELY POPULAR. The problem with a lot of lazy historians is they treat Hitler like he was an aberration. He wasn't. He was actually pretty reflective of how Germans saw the world.

Germans had a SHITLOAD of personal guns before the Nazis came to power. The Nazis actually repealed the gun restrictions the Weimar Republic tried to impose. And those Germans never, ever used those guns to fight the Nazis. When the Nazis came for the Jews, they average German cheered, because they hated the Jews.

They fought for Hitler to the last old man and little boy in the volksgrennideirs.

The guy who brought gun control to Germany? Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the confiscation of all privately owned guns in the Western occupation zones.

And those Germans never, ever used those guns to fight the Nazis.

And the ones who didn't support hitler had their guns confiscated you moron.....and then they were murdered....


It doesn't matter if he was popular, you dolt, if the people who didn't like him didn't have guns to stop his goon squads from beating them to death and looting their businesses while the socialist supporting police stood by and watched.......had normal people shot the thugs when they beat their neighbor or smashed their businesses, taking power would have been a lot more difficult.....you dumb ass.....

Moron...the socialists repealed those gun laws for nazi party members and used the gun registration lists to take guns away from the people they intended to murder in the death camps, Jews, Catholics, political enemies and subversives.....

 

[2aguy]

Then, when the weak armies of Europe fell to the socialists, they had no guns to resist the occupation......except for Switzerland, a country not invaded because their people had guns.....

Nobody invaded Switzerland because there was no tactical advantage to invading it. Same reason why no one invaded Turkey, Sweden, or Spain.

Dumb-asses like you think that the Axis just invaded places for fun.

moron, hitler wanted to invade Switzerland...his generals said the cost would be too high because the entire population was ready to fight, unlike the rest of europe where they confiscated all the guns...

 

[JoeB131]

And the ones who didn't support hitler had their guns confiscated you moron.....and then they were murdered....

Well, since Hitler had something like 99% support, that wasn't an issue.

The reality, there were 142 attempts to assassinate Hitler... and they all failed.

moron, hitler wanted to invade Switzerland...his generals said the cost would be too high because the entire population was ready to fight, unlike the rest of europe where they confiscated all the guns...

No, he really didn't. There was no good reason to.

Let's review what Hitler invaded and why.

Austria willingly joined Germany
He invaded Czechoslovakia to get back the Sudentenland. (The Czeck and slovaks then split like they would do 40 years later.)
He invaded poland to get back the land Germany lost in WWI.
He invaded Denmark and Norway to keep the flow of iron from Sweden coming. He didn't invade Sweden.
He invaded the low countries to get around the Maginot line and invade France.
He invaded Greece to bail out Mussolini.

Each and every invasion HAD a practical military reason. It was not because they were all that afraid of civilians with guns.

 

[2aguy]

And the ones who didn't support hitler had their guns confiscated you moron.....and then they were murdered....

Well, since Hitler had something like 99% support, that wasn't an issue.

The reality, there were 142 attempts to assassinate Hitler... and they all failed.

moron, hitler wanted to invade Switzerland...his generals said the cost would be too high because the entire population was ready to fight, unlike the rest of europe where they confiscated all the guns...

No, he really didn't. There was no good reason to.

Let's review what Hitler invaded and why.

Austria willingly joined Germany
He invaded Czechoslovakia to get back the Sudentenland. (The Czeck and slovaks then split like they would do 40 years later.)
He invaded poland to get back the land Germany lost in WWI.
He invaded Denmark and Norway to keep the flow of iron from Sweden coming. He didn't invade Sweden.
He invaded the low countries to get around the Maginot line and invade France.
He invaded Greece to bail out Mussolini.

Each and every invasion HAD a practical military reason. It was not because they were all that afraid of civilians with guns.

He invaded all of the countries that had taken guns away from their people...thanks for pointing that out.....he didn't invade Switzerland.......they had guns...lots of guns.

 

[2aguy]

And the ones who didn't support hitler had their guns confiscated you moron.....and then they were murdered....

Well, since Hitler had something like 99% support, that wasn't an issue.

The reality, there were 142 attempts to assassinate Hitler... and they all failed.

moron, hitler wanted to invade Switzerland...his generals said the cost would be too high because the entire population was ready to fight, unlike the rest of europe where they confiscated all the guns...

No, he really didn't. There was no good reason to.

Let's review what Hitler invaded and why.

Austria willingly joined Germany
He invaded Czechoslovakia to get back the Sudentenland. (The Czeck and slovaks then split like they would do 40 years later.)
He invaded poland to get back the land Germany lost in WWI.
He invaded Denmark and Norway to keep the flow of iron from Sweden coming. He didn't invade Sweden.
He invaded the low countries to get around the Maginot line and invade France.
He invaded Greece to bail out Mussolini.

Each and every invasion HAD a practical military reason. It was not because they were all that afraid of civilians with guns.

Moron...if you didn't support hitler you had the snot beaten out of you by antifa......I mean the brown shirts....... and you couldn't stop it because they first took your guns away.........and the mayors pulled back the police to protect antifa....I mean the brown shirts........and you couldn't stop them because you didn't have a gun...so voicing a dissenting opinion about antifa...I mean the national socialists.....would get you beaten, and your business trashed......by antifa.......

 

[JoeB131]

He invaded all of the countries that had taken guns away from their people...thanks for pointing that out.....he didn't invade Switzerland.......they had guns...lots of guns.

Those countries had plenty of guns.

Hitler had tanks and stukas...

tank beats gun.
Stuka beats gun



Switzerland didn't get invaded because when the Nazis needed to convert all the gold they were taking out the the teeth of the Jews, someone had to cash that in. Switzerland didn't get invaded because they were Hitler's banker.

The Sinister Face Of 'Neutrality' | FRONTLINE | PBS

Switzerland's reputation as a neutral safe-haven during World War 11 has been badly tarnished by recent revelations about its wartime transactions with Germany. What began as an examination of the dormant bank accounts of Holocaust victims has gained momentum to include the whole gamut of Swiss financial dealings with the Nazis. In recent months a vast amount of incriminating documentation has been unearthed that reveals the sinister side of Swiss "neutrality".

Switzerland served as a repository for Jewish capital smuggled out of Nazi Germany and the states threatened by it, and also for vast quantities of gold and other valuables plundered from Jews and others all over Europe. Right up until the end of the war, Switzerland laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in stolen assets, including gold taken from the central banks of German-occupied Europe. At the war's end Switzerland successfully resisted Allied calls to restitute these funds, and in the Washington Agreement of 1946 the Allies contented themselves with acceptance of a mere 12% of the stolen gold. Holocaust survivors and the heirs of those who perished met an implacable wall of bureaucracy and only a handful managed to reclaim their assets. As it turns out, some of the dormant accounts were taken by the Swiss authorities to satisfy claims of Swiss nationals whose property was seized by Communist regimes in East Central Europe.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron...if you didn't support hitler you had the snot beaten out of you by antifa......I mean the brown shirts....... and you couldn't stop it because they first took your guns away.........and the mayors pulled back the police to protect antifa....I mean the brown shirts........and you couldn't stop them because you didn't have a gun...so voicing a dissenting opinion about antifa...I mean the national socialists.....would get you beaten, and your business trashed......by antifa.......

Did an Antifa guy threaten you with a milkshake, little boy?

 

[2aguy]

He invaded all of the countries that had taken guns away from their people...thanks for pointing that out.....he didn't invade Switzerland.......they had guns...lots of guns.

Those countries had plenty of guns.

Hitler had tanks and stukas...

tank beats gun.
Stuka beats gun



Switzerland didn't get invaded because when the Nazis needed to convert all the gold they were taking out the the teeth of the Jews, someone had to cash that in. Switzerland didn't get invaded because they were Hitler's banker.

The Sinister Face Of 'Neutrality' | FRONTLINE | PBS

Switzerland's reputation as a neutral safe-haven during World War 11 has been badly tarnished by recent revelations about its wartime transactions with Germany. What began as an examination of the dormant bank accounts of Holocaust victims has gained momentum to include the whole gamut of Swiss financial dealings with the Nazis. In recent months a vast amount of incriminating documentation has been unearthed that reveals the sinister side of Swiss "neutrality".

Switzerland served as a repository for Jewish capital smuggled out of Nazi Germany and the states threatened by it, and also for vast quantities of gold and other valuables plundered from Jews and others all over Europe. Right up until the end of the war, Switzerland laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in stolen assets, including gold taken from the central banks of German-occupied Europe. At the war's end Switzerland successfully resisted Allied calls to restitute these funds, and in the Washington Agreement of 1946 the Allies contented themselves with acceptance of a mere 12% of the stolen gold. Holocaust survivors and the heirs of those who perished met an implacable wall of bureaucracy and only a handful managed to reclaim their assets. As it turns out, some of the dormant accounts were taken by the Swiss authorities to satisfy claims of Swiss nationals whose property was seized by Communist regimes in East Central Europe.

No, moron...once he defeated the weak armies of those countries the civilians were helpless......because they had no guns.

Hitler invaded every country he wanted to invade that couldn't fight back......and Switzerland was on the list....he would have controlled their banking system you moron...... but their armed population made occupation impossible...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Easy peasy.
There's no demonstrable necessity for the state to have on record the owner of every gun in the US; as such, the requirement that people register their guns is an unnecessary restriction - that is, an infringement - on their right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You saying there is no reason, does not make it so...

Please demonstrable the necessity for the state to have on record the owner of every gun in the US
If you cannot so demonstrate - and you cannot - the requirement that people register their guns is an unnecessary restriction - that is, an infringement - on their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Having people register their guns is not infringing the right to bear them.

It is if there in no demonstrable necessity for the state to have on record the owner of each gun, as absent said necessity, it becomes an unnecessary restriction on the right to keep and bear arms - an infringement.
So far, no one has demonstrated such a necessity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have to prove it is going to violate your 2nd Amendment rights...

NoooOOOoooOooo....
That's -not- how it works.
The burden of proof - that is, the demonstration of the necessity for the restriction - lies on those that seek the restriction.

 

[JoeB131]

No, moron...once he defeated the weak armies of those countries the civilians were helpless......because they had no guns.

Hitler invaded every country he wanted to invade that couldn't fight back......and Switzerland was on the list....he would have controlled their banking system you moron...... but their armed population made occupation impossible...

He didn't invade Spain. Spain had just undergone a three year civil war, she was in no condition to fight back.

He didn't invade Sweden. Sweden was a relatively weak country. Had a shitload of resources Germany wanted, too. But since they were willing to sell them, he didn't have to.

Nobody is sitting their thinking, "2AGUY is at home, polishing his guns! We'd better not do anything".

I mean, the neighbors are probably terrified.. but the government isn't.

 

[2aguy]

No, moron...once he defeated the weak armies of those countries the civilians were helpless......because they had no guns.

Hitler invaded every country he wanted to invade that couldn't fight back......and Switzerland was on the list....he would have controlled their banking system you moron...... but their armed population made occupation impossible...

He didn't invade Spain. Spain had just undergone a three year civil war, she was in no condition to fight back.

He didn't invade Sweden. Sweden was a relatively weak country. Had a shitload of resources Germany wanted, too. But since they were willing to sell them, he didn't have to.

Nobody is sitting their thinking, "2AGUY is at home, polishing his guns! We'd better not do anything".

I mean, the neighbors are probably terrified.. but the government isn't.

Moron, by the time he was involved in France and Russia, we were entering the war....he was previously occupied...you dope.....he was also in Africa, of all places.......Switzerland with its banks were right there....and he didn't attack though he hated them......