What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[Blues Man]

Every single gun purchase I ever made was subject to a background check
My CC permit was subject to a background check

Come on down to Texas. You can legally buy a truck load of guns, and nobody even has to ask your name. Federal law allows that.

No it doesn't

Persons Banned From Firearm Possession
The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 makes it illegal for a person who fits into any of the following categories to receive or possess a firearm. These laws prevent the State from issuing a Pistol Permit because it would be illegal for people who fit in these categories, by Federal law, to own or possess a gun.

• Fugitives from justice
• Persons who are unlawful users of or are addicted to narcotics or any other controlled substances
• Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution
• Persons who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Persons who are under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Military veterans discharged under dishonorable conditions
• Persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship
• Aliens illegally in the U.S.
• Persons subject to a court order that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• And persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

So if a person sells to any of these people he is committing a crime

Only if it can be proven that the seller knew of any of that. Without any kind of background check, the seller is able to say he wasn't aware of any of that, and sell to whomever he wants.

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

 

[Blues Man]

Stop and Frisk is unamerican and 'regular new yorkers' being denied guns and gun permits is both before and after Stop and Frisk . Course the Elites , politicians and big money people ALL have armed guards , security and HENCHMEN like YOU claim to be paid by Taxpayers 'mrguncontrol' Daryl .

You get what you vote for and New Yorkers consistently vote for all of these things, so apparently they enjoy being serfs on a manor with their lord in control of the land.

In comparison to Chicago, NYers enjoy safer streets, better jobs, better police and fire departments and more. Yes, you get what you vote for.

And it has more to do with the proactive policing in NYC than it does gun laws

It's a lot more than that. Its the community getting involved in a positive manner. Gangs only exist when the neighborhoods allow it and there is a lack of jobs. Fix just those two and add the cooperation of the Law Enforcement and you automatically have a reduction in crime since those are the two main contributing factors why the criminals are there in the first place.

Like I said it's far more than just gun laws

Oh and I'm still waiting for those stats that prove NYC was the murder capital for the entire world in the 60's and 70's as you claim

 

[Blues Man]

So you should have a background check before you have kids too.

When it gets to where my kid can accidentally go off and kill you in Walmart, we can talk about background checks for kids.

Lol
You like to dig into people’s personal lives apparently, It doesn’t get any more personal than firearm ownership.
You need to mind your own fucking business, your weasel like behavior betrays you

You gonna caps lock me into submission?

Mind your own business, other fire ownership is none of your business... That’s what the Second Amendment is for, telling you creepy motherfuckers is to stay out of peoples personal lives. Lol

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

OK so tell me how my owning a gun puts you at risk?

You don't even know who I am and if I was standing right next to you you would have no clue I was carrying.

I've had my CC permit for over 30 years and have never once has anyone been less safe because I was in proximity to them

 

[Blues Man]

Lol
You like to dig into people’s personal lives apparently, It doesn’t get any more personal than firearm ownership.
You need to mind your own fucking business, your weasel like behavior betrays you

You gonna caps lock me into submission?

Mind your own business, other fire ownership is none of your business... That’s what the Second Amendment is for, telling you creepy motherfuckers is to stay out of peoples personal lives. Lol

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

Lol
You’re delusional, you need to go find you a safe space if you feel that way.
People kill people not firearms

Gun nuts kill people with guns.

No, criminals kill people with all kinds of weapons

 

[Rustic]

No doubt Ted Nugent was a draft dodger, much like slick Willy.
Ted Nugent does not speak for Anyone other than himself, but he sure does piss you little bedwetters off… LOL

The dirty diaper fool spoke for the NRA.

Lol
See I told you so, he does sure make you bedwetters wet the bed...

Not really, but he wet his pants by choice. He nasty..

Lol
Like I said draft dodgers like him represent himself and only himself much like slick Willy also a draft dodger...

No he wasn't. He had legitimate deferments for college and then was in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

Lol
What a fucking joke, he was a child molesting piece of shit and still is. Legitimate deferment?whatever! shut the fuck up you moron

 

[Cellblock2429]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

The whole good guy with a gun thing misunderstood

What you fail to understand is that no civilian has the obligation to stop a crime.

Shit the fucking cops don't have to respond to a call from a citizen

A good guy with a gun commits no crime with his gun or without therefore law abiding people who own and carry guns are not a factor in crime and murder stats

Gun nuts and the NRA consider an armed thug on the way to his first armed robbery to be a good guy with a gun right up until the second he robs the store.

That's a flawed argument

I could argue you are a drunk driver in waiting so should I suspend your drivers licence today?
I could argue that you are an abusive parent in waiting so should I call DCF to have your kids taken away?

/---/ All of the gun grabbers arguments are flawed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the problem was, the cops were very, very nervous because the community saw them as a bigger threat than the criminals. It was not a good time to be a cop in those days. You will notice that NYC doesn't have the cop "Murders" that the other cities are having right now. The Citizens cooperate much better with the Cops are taught how to approach a cop on the street. You are attributing stop and frisk as the answer. It was part of the problem. Cops and the Community as well as the Companies creating Jobs always was the answer. Stop and Frisk was deemed unconstitutional very quickly so it had almost zero affect except to cause some discontent in the community that the Cops had to win back.

The link I provided was posted 5 days ago. Let's see how this plays out the next couple of years. I'm willing to bet violent crime will continue to increase.

That's a bet you shouldn't take. And I won't bet on the other way around. A 7 week period is just someone looking for a news item when they are trying to make a slanted point. If you notice, using your own cite, almost all other crimes were down. Plus, the increase was attributed to just one area. And you can bet that there is an increase in law enforcement being done there today. You can't know where to increase your cops until AFTER it's needed.

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Unions never help the individual, unions are all about the union bosses getting powerful and rich

If a company wants to prevent a union they can pay their workers and provide better benefits than the union can provide to prevent the union from coming in. A Union is neither evil nor good. But the threat of a Union should be enough to get the workers fair treatment. Many Companies would rather make a deal with the devil than treat it's employees fair. And those companies should not be in business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

When you get behind the wheel of a car, you are putting more lives at risk because unlike intentional shootings, accidents happen. In fact over 40,000 Americans die in auto accidents per year on top of those seriously injured that managed to survive an accident.

But we don't insist you shouldn't own a car.

 

[Rustic]

The link I provided was posted 5 days ago. Let's see how this plays out the next couple of years. I'm willing to bet violent crime will continue to increase.

That's a bet you shouldn't take. And I won't bet on the other way around. A 7 week period is just someone looking for a news item when they are trying to make a slanted point. If you notice, using your own cite, almost all other crimes were down. Plus, the increase was attributed to just one area. And you can bet that there is an increase in law enforcement being done there today. You can't know where to increase your cops until AFTER it's needed.

The brothers are not focused in on the latest news items. It takes time for word to get around.....but it will eventually.

Unconstitutional? I don't know about that. We truck drivers are subject to our own stop and frisk and it's been going on for a long time now. Cops chase us down and pull us over for no other reason than to check out you and your truck. The last several times I got pulled over I asked what I was doing wrong? The general reply was "There was nothing wrong, but I'm going to find something wrong." Then they proceed to check out your entire truck, inside the cab, paperwork, freight inside the trailer, the whole ball of wax. A couple of times they made me open up the hood to check the engine compartment.

Of course if they did this with all motorists, there would be a rebellion. But because it only applies to trucks, nobody says a thing about it.

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Unions never help the individual, unions are all about the union bosses getting powerful and rich

If a company wants to prevent a union they can pay their workers and provide better benefits than the union can provide to prevent the union from coming in. A Union is neither evil nor good. But the threat of a Union should be enough to get the workers fair treatment. Many Companies would rather make a deal with the devil than treat it's employees fair. And those companies should not be in business.

The average individual is the least of the worries of the union… Unions are all about politics, control and greed

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then I suggest you get with your Truckers Assn and do something about....oh, that's right, you busted the union so you are on your own. Sucks to be you.

Even when there was a union the cops did this. And, the unions drove most of the trucking companies out of business. Now there are only a few huge trucking companies. All of the independents are long gone. My friends dad worked for Churchill truck lines in Kansas City. The Teamsters went on strike even after the owner told them that he wouldn't survive if they did. They did anyway. 30 minutes later they all trooped out, and he closed his doors putting hundreds out of work.

Typical union morons.

How do I put this nicely. There are many businesses that shouldn't even be in business. The sooner we can get them done and gone the sooner we can allow the good businesses to flourish. Those hundreds had jobs waiting from the at good trucking companies. Right now, there is a huge shortage of Truckers. And the pay is pretty damned good. If I were 15 years younger I would be driving a Truck. It pays as well as the Oil Field, has about the same hours and it's a damn sight easier on the body. So don't give me that crap about how the Teamsters destroyed the business. If it had been a healthy business the Company would have been able to afford to options; work with the Union or pay the Drivers enough that they didn't need the Union in the first place. They chose to do neither for reasons of their own. It's not politics, it's business and economics.

I happen to know a lot about the Churchill Truck lines affair because of my friend. Care to guess what percentage of the employees didn't actually do any work thanks to the "work rules" the union imposed?

There are two major Beer Mfgs in the US and Canada; Coors and Anheuser-Busch. Coors is non union while Bush is Union. The Union has been trying to break into Coors for many decades. They fail because Coors pays their workers better than the Union Workers, has better benefits than any union can provide and the employee loyalty to Coors is just out of sight. So don't give me that crap about the evil union kills business. Unions are neither good nor bad. You use the threat of the Union to get fair treatment. If you can't get it then you need a union. If it breaks the company then the company probably shouldn't have been in business in the first place. Case in point; the company most in need of a friggin union is Walmart.

For hire independently always pays better than union fuck ups

We had a near Union Walkout here just recently. Rather than play fair with the employees, the Company had replacement workers shipped in and waiting in motels ready to go to work. The replacement workers were to make less money and have zero benefits as compared to the current workers who were already working far below the national wage average. Your bunch keeps bringing up professional drivers. Bus Drivers being paid 11 bucks an hour max and worked a total of 10 hours shifts with no lunch breaks for a total of 10 our days just because the company can means they let the Union in. Even so, the Union, due to this state being a right to work state, couldn't get them lunch breaks and settled for 15 an hour with no increase in benefits. So much for a strong union. The reason the Union came in in the first place was the original pay was just over minimum wage. The average bus driver pay is well over 20 bucks an hour almost every where else along with good strong benefits and a lunch break. Had the drivers not voted to not strike, every one of them would have been out of work and the replacement workers shipped in from other areas would have been paid just over Minimum wage and no Union. In other words, right back to where it started from.

 

[ph3iron]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

Confederate, rube land?
The biggest recipients of other states aid?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bus Drivers being paid 11 bucks an hour max and worked a total of 10 hours shifts with no lunch breaks

Then they are in violation of federal law.

Updated HOS 30-Minute Break Enforcement Policy for Short-Haul Drivers

If a company is found to be negligent in following transportation regulations, and the driver gets into a serious accident, the harmed parties can sue that company right out of business.

 

[BULLDOG]

The average gun nut doesn't do much training for that type situation. Even if they are an avid hunter and go to the gun range regularly, which most don't, that isn't training for a confrontational situation.

Marksmanship is like riding a bike… Start off young as possible and it’s always there.

Target shooting is not the same as a gun fight dumb ass.

Lol
Stay in your lane, bud

Again. MAKE ME.

What are you, 8 years old?

No, but when dealing with an obvious 8 year old as I have been doing here, you sometimes need to get on their level to get through to them.

 

[BULLDOG]

Come on down to Texas. You can legally buy a truck load of guns, and nobody even has to ask your name. Federal law allows that.

No it doesn't

Persons Banned From Firearm Possession
The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 makes it illegal for a person who fits into any of the following categories to receive or possess a firearm. These laws prevent the State from issuing a Pistol Permit because it would be illegal for people who fit in these categories, by Federal law, to own or possess a gun.

• Fugitives from justice
• Persons who are unlawful users of or are addicted to narcotics or any other controlled substances
• Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution
• Persons who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Persons who are under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Military veterans discharged under dishonorable conditions
• Persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship
• Aliens illegally in the U.S.
• Persons subject to a court order that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• And persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

So if a person sells to any of these people he is committing a crime

Only if it can be proven that the seller knew of any of that. Without any kind of background check, the seller is able to say he wasn't aware of any of that, and sell to whomever he wants.

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

Nope. The seller is not required to do anything to determine whether any buyer is allowed to have a gun. You expect him to conduct his own personal background check before he makes the sale? Universal background checks would solve that part of the problem.

 

[hadit]

Incorrect. One of the oldest adages in the military is "you fight the way you train".

The average gun nut doesn't do much training for that type situation. Even if they are an avid hunter and go to the gun range regularly, which most don't, that isn't training for a confrontational situation.

Marksmanship is like riding a bike… Start off young as possible and it’s always there.

Target shooting is not the same as a gun fight dumb ass.

Lol
Anyone that is truly a second amendment supporter will go out of their way for any type of firearm practice, marksmanship, hunting and shooting whatever it may be.
The fact remains Americans are buying guns and ammo… Making America great

Yes. A few gun nuts are buying lots of guns.

Which means that your fear of being surrounded by guns is groundless. If gun owners are few and far between, your fear of being shot by one is far less credible than their desire to protect themselves and their loved ones. You can't have it both ways, simultaneously complaining that guns are everywhere AND smugly claiming that few people are buying them.

 

[hadit]

So you should have a background check before you have kids too.

When it gets to where my kid can accidentally go off and kill you in Walmart, we can talk about background checks for kids.

Lol
You like to dig into people’s personal lives apparently, It doesn’t get any more personal than firearm ownership.
You need to mind your own fucking business, your weasel like behavior betrays you

You gonna caps lock me into submission?

Mind your own business, other fire ownership is none of your business... That’s what the Second Amendment is for, telling you creepy motherfuckers is to stay out of peoples personal lives. Lol

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

Answer honestly. Are you more or less likely to be shot by a lawful gun owner than to be accosted by a potentially deadly assailant?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

What's nuts is people too stupid to understand why there's gun violence in cities in such as Chicago in spite their firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is buying into the "good guy with a gun" lie.

What's nuts is buying into the lie that citizens carrying concealed firearms helps to "reduce crime."

What's nuts is buying into the lie that mythical "gun-free zones" contribute to mass shootings.

What's nuts is opposing perfectly appropriate and constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

What's nuts is the slippery slope fallacy of "gun confiscation."

Read the news sometime and you will see they are trying to confiscate one step at a time. A new regulation here, a new regulation there, and before you know it, all those regulations will add up to it being virtually impossible to own a firearm. That's why the cancer has to be stopped at first detection.

Democrats are like terrorists. They use increments to reach their ultimate goal and are plenty patient.

New Mexico's Democrat Gov. Signs Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

Do you mean if I vote for a Democrat I immediately must want to confiscate your firearms? Only if you are a danger to Society and yourself. And then only if a Judge rules for your guns to be temporarily removed either by a Law Enforcement or another Family Member. And then, only until the condition either passes or it becomes necessary to have you committed. But before those guns can be removed, you MUST have your time in court to state your case. Welcome to Colorado.

Wrong. Democrats all over the country are trying to make guns illegal baby step by baby step. In the past they have made suggestions on ways to disarm the public without going too far that would involve a Supreme Court ruling.

If it's not private sales background checks, it's taxes on ammunition. If it's not taxes on ammunition, it's magazine capacity. If it's not magazine capacity, it's semi-automatic weapons. The list goes on and on.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-newspaper-removes-gun-permit-database-from-website-after-outcry

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

NY Gun Confiscation - Citizens Told to Turn in Firearms
\
New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns

Targeted? Gun sellers’ ‘high risk’ label from feds cuts banking options, hurts business

Senate Dems, Led by Feinstein, Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

The Pauxsnews source has been redacted and removed from the net. It's made up. It's a lie. Someone made it up and Pawssnews ran with it.

Insurance? Now, that went a long ways. Yes, a handful wanted to treat guns like cars and drives licenses but it didn't amount to anything and went nowhere. MOST Democrats had a big laugh and moved on. Even so, it's not against the 2nd Amendment, each state can make that determination (none have done this but 3 have considered it) and it would change nothing. Let's face it, if you were required to have liability insurance to own a gun and couldn't get it, I would seriously question if you should own a gun in the first place. There would have to be a pretty damned good reason that the Insurance Company would turn you down. It sounds like a pretty good insurance scam for the insurance companies. But everyone had a good guffaw and moved on.

NY Gun Confiscation: Wow, what a reach on this one. The only ones that this affected were those that have a history using powerful psychotropic drugs. Is this a new market that the NRA wants to establish that they think they can exploit?. You are aware that anyone using illegal drugs by federal standards is not supposed to own firearms, don't you? I guess you support the Mass Murders since most of them have also been under those powerful drugs. Wow, if there aren't enough sickos with guns, we make more through chemistry.

NYC confiscating Rifles and Shotguns. Wow, another one. These are are for the internal ammo storage type like a pump shotgun or a standard top load rifle uses. These have been illegal for decades by Federal Standard. The exception to the rule is the 22 rifle that has no limit in it's tube. Shotguns with a capacity to hold more than 5 shells can be modified by placing a slug or spacer in the tube to prevent more than 5 round storage. And they haven't made a Rifle with internal ammo storage with more than 5 rounds for decades. I followed the links and here is what I found. It leads to another "Fantasy" site. And So It Begins: New York Sending Out Gun Confiscation Notices - The Truth About Guns
If you look at the supposed letter, you will notice that the only 3 entries on it where the owners are blanked out is for three 22 lr rifles to be turned in with more than 5 rounds. Newsflash: It's a friggin hoax. The 22LR Rifles are exempt and can hold as many shells as their tubes can take. Another Lie, or fake news.


Targeted Guns Sellers Where do you get this. You need to do standup comedy with this material. The Investigation was for Online Businesses that were at the highest rate of damage to the customers. It just so happens that many of them were Online Gun Dealers and Accessory Dealers. Most of those were shut down. Do you mean that if I were to put up a Gun Scam online that you would defend my right to do so? Must be, that's what you are doing here.

Introducing an Assault Weapons Ban Do you see what I see? Hasn't that been tried before and failed in the court systems? And you say that ALL democrats supported it? Using your own cite, most of the Dems did NOT support it and it went absolutely no where. Once more, you are lying out your ass.

NJ House to House Confiscation Here is a gem from you. Yes, in 2013, NJ passed a law that there would be no more mags with more than a 10 round capacity sold, traded, etc. in the state. Colorado passed the same law. Are you aware, it was grandfathered in? That means, if you have one with more than 10, you need to keep it in your home where it's legal. Taking it out of your home, it might be confiscated. But inside your home, it's legal. You can parade around your house wearing nothing more than a red ribbon on your private parts and no one will care as long as you keep your drapes closed. The orginating source was Brietbart who is pretty much at the bottom of the truth scale on anything, they just make shit up.

Please stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Bus Drivers being paid 11 bucks an hour max and worked a total of 10 hours shifts with no lunch breaks

Then they are in violation of federal law.

Updated HOS 30-Minute Break Enforcement Policy for Short-Haul Drivers

If a company is found to be negligent in following transportation regulations, and the driver gets into a serious accident, the harmed parties can sue that company right out of business.

From your own cite

regulations for drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)

This does only covers property carrying drivers, not human carrying drivers. If you can find me the same thing that covers human carrying (or bus drivers) I am sure that the Bus Drivers around here would be appreciative.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No it doesn't

Persons Banned From Firearm Possession
The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 makes it illegal for a person who fits into any of the following categories to receive or possess a firearm. These laws prevent the State from issuing a Pistol Permit because it would be illegal for people who fit in these categories, by Federal law, to own or possess a gun.

• Fugitives from justice
• Persons who are unlawful users of or are addicted to narcotics or any other controlled substances
• Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution
• Persons who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Persons who are under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year
• Military veterans discharged under dishonorable conditions
• Persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship
• Aliens illegally in the U.S.
• Persons subject to a court order that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
• And persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

So if a person sells to any of these people he is committing a crime

Only if it can be proven that the seller knew of any of that. Without any kind of background check, the seller is able to say he wasn't aware of any of that, and sell to whomever he wants.

Where does it say that under the federal laws? Federal law has said anyone falling into any category of the prohibited persons I listed cannot own or receive a firearm. PERIOD

You are confusing state and federal laws

Again

18 USC 922 (d) - Prohibited persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such person—

It's still up to the seller to know who he is selling to.

Nope. The seller is not required to do anything to determine whether any buyer is allowed to have a gun. You expect him to conduct his own personal background check before he makes the sale? Universal background checks would solve that part of the problem.

In a universal background check state, the Seller much be aware if that person has passed a background check on THAT PARTICULAR TRANSACTION. It's usually done by the seller and the buyer going to a gun shop together and have the background check ran with both present. Afterwards, it really doesn't matter where the sale is done. But if the Gun Dealer has his way, it's going to be anywhere other than his store.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When it gets to where my kid can accidentally go off and kill you in Walmart, we can talk about background checks for kids.

Lol
You like to dig into people’s personal lives apparently, It doesn’t get any more personal than firearm ownership.
You need to mind your own fucking business, your weasel like behavior betrays you

You gonna caps lock me into submission?

Mind your own business, other fire ownership is none of your business... That’s what the Second Amendment is for, telling you creepy motherfuckers is to stay out of peoples personal lives. Lol

It is my business if you put my life at risk to make a fashion statement.

Answer honestly. Are you more or less likely to be shot by a lawful gun owner than to be accosted by a potentially deadly assailant?

In my neighborhood, I am more likely to get shot by an arrant shot from an accidental gun discharge than from a deadly assailant. Now, if I wanted to get armed up and go looking for it, I can easily change those odds. I know where some areas are that I can really piss off some real nasty characters fast.