Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[Slade3200]

We’ve been doing all of that regulating for years, it has been debated in Congress and appealed to the Supreme Court which is the proper legal path to take when conflicts arise. It’s been ruled upon. That’s the process that our founders set up. I’m sorry that you don’t respect that but it is what it is.

Who said the SC was the end all, be all, never to be questioned or challenged?

I thought we had three 'coequal' branches of government, and the SC was just one of them.

Well I sure as hell didn’t say that. Challenge the SC all you want

Then you disapprove of the SC being activists and legislating from the bench, even though you've admitted they do it.

Yes I disapprove of the SC legislating from the bench. They are there to rule on the legality of laws

 

[Slade3200]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

 

[daveman]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.

 

[Slade3200]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.

All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?

 

[Flash]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

Don't lie. It just makes you look like an idiot to go down that path.

If you put restrictions on who can own a firearm, if you restrict the kind of firearms, if you require government permission before getting a firearm and if you create requirements for firearm use then you are sure as hell doing some serious infringing.

The Constitution is very specific. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't be credible when you stick your head up your ass and claim that infringements are not infringements.

We’ve been doing all of that regulating for years, it has been debated in Congress and appealed to the Supreme Court which is the proper legal path to take when conflicts arise. It’s been ruled upon. That’s the process that our founders set up. I’m sorry that you don’t respect that but it is what it is.

You are really confused about this aren't you?

Do you know what the Heller case was all about? It was about the filthy stupid hate filled Liberals in DC saying that nobody could have a gun. Not even a law abiding citizens having it for personal defense in his own home.

The ability to keep and bear arms is severely restricted for everybody in several of the Democrat controlled Communist states.

Did you hear what Eric Stallwell said? He said the government was going to take away all our guns. Others said that we need to do away with the Second Amendment.

You cannot trust Liberals to say who can enjoy the rights in the Consititution and who can't because they will do the wrong thing. Numerous examples if you are really confused about it and need to be educated.

 

[daveman]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.

All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?

Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

It's not up to the courts to supersede the Constitution
For that, it would take a Constitutional convention
OR
Congress amending the Constitution and with the approval of 2/3rds of the states

The courts interpret the Constitution and their say is final until the Constitution is changed.

The courts cannot alter the bill of rights, it's not their job only Congress and 2/3rds of the states can do that
IT'S CALLED AMENDMENT

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

They are 9, politically appointed lawyers.........they aren't saints.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, democracy sucks.

actually we aren't a democracy we are a REPUBLIC that protects individual rights against the majority or (democracy)

And how is that relevant in this instance?

Simply put a REPUBLIC protects rights that a democracy 51% would do away with

 

[Slade3200]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

Why shouldn’t he be able to buy the gun. It’s a god given right isn’t it?

He's not able to buy the gun due to the laws in place...the laws you support and want to expand.

Unless, of course, you want to apply an ideological filter to the law.

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

We already have back ground checks for gun stores...we don't need universal backgroundchecks......criminals already get most of their guns through straw buyers who can already pass any background check......

What harm to you see with universal background checks

My post #296 gives you the exact reasons universal background checks are an infringement on the Right to own and carry guns, and simply a backdoor way to get to gun registration, as well as ways to make it harder for Americans to exercise their Right...

You can't give any reason to support universal background checks.

I think it’s a much cleaner and more efficient system to have universal BG checks. That’s a pretty simple and basic reason. I imagine if pressed you also wouldn’t technically have a problem with registration except for the fact that you think it is the step that leads to confiscation. Am I right?

Why do you think the government needs to know what people own?

I think for the same reasons cars require a licensed driver and registration. There is a purpose for that and it is public safety.

Again....cars are not connected to a Right..... a Right one political party wants to end...and to end it they need to know who owns the guns and where they are.

I’m not talking about rights I’m talking about purpose which was the question

Universal Background checks do nothing...

Method, source, and process used to obtain the firearm Among prisoners who possessed a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were imprisoned and who reported the source from which they obtained it, the most common source (43%) was off-the-street or the underground market (table 5). Another 7% of state and 5% of federal prisoners stole the firearm, and 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners reported that they obtained the firearm at the location of the crime.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

You’re link only showed that about 50% of guns were obtained illegally. You do realize that leaves another 50% don’t you?

You understand that there are over a 100 million guns in the US that are used for legal purposes, don't you?

Why would you infringe up the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms arms because gang bangers, druggies and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes would use mostly illegally required firearms for criminal purposes?

You know that the Constitution says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, don't you? I shit you not. Go look it up.

It’s not my intent to infringe in the rights of the innocent. Good responsible people should have to right to bare arms. It’s the dangerous and irresponsible That’s shouldn’t get guns... wouldn’t you agree?

Don't lie. It just makes you look like an idiot to go down that path.

If you put restrictions on who can own a firearm, if you restrict the kind of firearms, if you require government permission before getting a firearm and if you create requirements for firearm use then you are sure as hell doing some serious infringing.

The Constitution is very specific. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't be credible when you stick your head up your ass and claim that infringements are not infringements.

We’ve been doing all of that regulating for years, it has been debated in Congress and appealed to the Supreme Court which is the proper legal path to take when conflicts arise. It’s been ruled upon. That’s the process that our founders set up. I’m sorry that you don’t respect that but it is what it is.

You are really confused about this aren't you?

Do you know what the Heller case was all about? It was about the filthy stupid hate filled Liberals in DC saying that nobody could have a gun. Not even a law abiding citizens having it for personal defense in his own home.

The ability to keep and bear arms is severely restricted for everybody in several of the Democrat controlled Communist states.

Did you hear what Eric Stallwell said? He said the government was going to take away all our guns. Others said that we need to do away with the Second Amendment.

You cannot trust Liberals to say who can enjoy the rights in the Consititution and who can't because they will do the wrong thing. Numerous examples if you are really confused about it and need to be educated.

I don’t live in DC but if I did then I would not have supported a law that took away all guns

 

[Slade3200]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

You don't get it do you? You are really confused.

We don't want asshole Liberals decidining who is entitled to enjoy the Bill of Rights and who ain't. The reason is because you Liberal assholes will always be oppressive. A Liberal's list is oppressive. For instance, that asshole Obama put out a Justice Department memo shortly after getting into office that clearly said that Veterans and even Christians were potential terrorists. You can't allow potential terrorists to have guns, can you?

You obviously don’t understand what Liberal means... I think you’re trying to say Democrat or progressive.

im not even going to touch that BS you just tossed out about about Obama’s terrorist memo. Thats pretty pathetic, let’s just pretend you didn’t say that.

Yes, let's pretend he didn't say it. That way you don't have to defend the memo.

New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans

The memo speaks for itself. I don’t think it needs to be defended. It definitely does NOT say what Flash claimed it said

Yes, it does. Definitely. The Obama Administration declared veterans, among others, to be potential domestic terrorists.

All veterans? So every veteran was to be flagged and treated like a potential terrorist? Is that your claim?

Let's read what it says, shall we?

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

...

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

...

DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

Does that sound like the Obama Administration trusted veterans? Because, you know, obviously -- they didn't.

Oh look at that, he wasn’t talking about all vets he was talking about those having problems re-emerging into society After returning from battle. Crazy how things change we we look at the actual words and not your warped characterizations. Have you ever seen stats on suicide rates and PTSD that these poor soles experience? Now look at you trying to politicize them to mischaracterized Obama’s legitimate concern. That’s pretty sad

 

[2aguy]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

 

[Slade3200]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

I have no problem prosecuting straw buyers... but if we had it your way anybody could buy from gun stores and there would be no need for straw buyers. It wouldn’t be a crime to straw buy. So your arguments conflict with eachother. You either believe in infringing on the 2nd amendment and regulating who buys guns thus making straw buying a crime... or you don’t. Which is it?

 

[2aguy]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

I have no problem prosecuting straw buyers... but if we had it your way anybody could buy from gun stores and there would be no need for straw buyers. It wouldn’t be a crime to straw buy. So your arguments conflict with eachother. You either believe in infringing on the 2nd amendment and regulating who buys guns thus making straw buying a crime... or you don’t. Which is it?

Nope....I am fine with the current background check system for licensed gun stores and gun sellers......what we need is an instant system where you plug in the soc. sec. number and name and you see if the buyer is a felon.....gun stores need access to the actual data base cops use when they pull you over for a traffic ticket. We are stuck with that system....so being reasonable I will live with that....but no to universal background checks. They are pointless and useless.......

The current system doesn't stop criminals or mass shooters but I will leave it in place since, like masks, it is security theater....

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a felon.......we don't need universal background checks to do that......

 

[Slade3200]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

I have no problem prosecuting straw buyers... but if we had it your way anybody could buy from gun stores and there would be no need for straw buyers. It wouldn’t be a crime to straw buy. So your arguments conflict with eachother. You either believe in infringing on the 2nd amendment and regulating who buys guns thus making straw buying a crime... or you don’t. Which is it?

Nope....I am fine with the current background check system for licensed gun stores and gun sellers......what we need is an instant system where you plug in the soc. sec. number and name and you see if the buyer is a felon.....gun stores need access to the actual data base cops use when they pull you over for a traffic ticket. We are stuck with that system....so being reasonable I will live with that....but no to universal background checks. They are pointless and useless.......

The current system doesn't stop criminals or mass shooters but I will leave it in place since, like masks, it is security theater....

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a felon.......we don't need universal background checks to do that......

Ok so you are being reasonable by supporting the current system but if you could have it your way would you do BG checks and restrict felons from owning firearms? Do you think those regulations are constitutional and effective?

 

[2aguy]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

I have no problem prosecuting straw buyers... but if we had it your way anybody could buy from gun stores and there would be no need for straw buyers. It wouldn’t be a crime to straw buy. So your arguments conflict with eachother. You either believe in infringing on the 2nd amendment and regulating who buys guns thus making straw buying a crime... or you don’t. Which is it?

Nope....I am fine with the current background check system for licensed gun stores and gun sellers......what we need is an instant system where you plug in the soc. sec. number and name and you see if the buyer is a felon.....gun stores need access to the actual data base cops use when they pull you over for a traffic ticket. We are stuck with that system....so being reasonable I will live with that....but no to universal background checks. They are pointless and useless.......

The current system doesn't stop criminals or mass shooters but I will leave it in place since, like masks, it is security theater....

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a felon.......we don't need universal background checks to do that......

Ok so you are being reasonable by supporting the current system but if you could have it your way would you do BG checks and restrict felons from owning firearms? Do you think those regulations are constitutional and effective?

Only through licensed dealers....the system we currently have....and only if we can get the same data base the cops use and make background check instant. No reason that with the tech we have that we can't do that.

Felons should be restricted and we can discuss for how long after they are off of parole...

With my plan, however, violent gun criminals would be serving 30 years for any crime.... real crime.....committed with a gun.....and attempted murder or murder with a gun would be life...but preferably the death penalty...

So...... embezzle money and become a felon...lose your right to own a gun till your time is served....use a gun for rape, robbery or murder.......you go away minimum 30 years....no parole.

 

[2aguy]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

I have no problem prosecuting straw buyers... but if we had it your way anybody could buy from gun stores and there would be no need for straw buyers. It wouldn’t be a crime to straw buy. So your arguments conflict with eachother. You either believe in infringing on the 2nd amendment and regulating who buys guns thus making straw buying a crime... or you don’t. Which is it?

Nope....I am fine with the current background check system for licensed gun stores and gun sellers......what we need is an instant system where you plug in the soc. sec. number and name and you see if the buyer is a felon.....gun stores need access to the actual data base cops use when they pull you over for a traffic ticket. We are stuck with that system....so being reasonable I will live with that....but no to universal background checks. They are pointless and useless.......

The current system doesn't stop criminals or mass shooters but I will leave it in place since, like masks, it is security theater....

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a felon.......we don't need universal background checks to do that......

Ok so you are being reasonable by supporting the current system but if you could have it your way would you do BG checks and restrict felons from owning firearms? Do you think those regulations are constitutional and effective?

Gun stores checking to see if you are a felon is likely Constitutional....for the sale of private property...no. ..And background checks.......they are not effective...as our gun crime rates in democrat party controlled cities show.

 

[alang1216]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

It's not up to the courts to supersede the Constitution
For that, it would take a Constitutional convention
OR
Congress amending the Constitution and with the approval of 2/3rds of the states

The courts interpret the Constitution and their say is final until the Constitution is changed.

The courts cannot alter the bill of rights, it's not their job only Congress and 2/3rds of the states can do that
IT'S CALLED AMENDMENT

Your understanding of the US gov't is faulty. The SCOTUS can do pretty much what they like since they have the power to interpret. They can interpret the 2nd amendment to apply to militias or they can interpret it to mean individuals. They have done both:

• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[17][18]
• In Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.[19][20]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Speech and assembly are Rights but there are limits imposed on each. We have Rights, we don't have absolute Rights, they are all limited in one way or another.

The limits are never what SJW assholes claim they are.

Not SJW, but SCOTUS.

It's not up to the courts to supersede the Constitution
For that, it would take a Constitutional convention
OR
Congress amending the Constitution and with the approval of 2/3rds of the states

The courts interpret the Constitution and their say is final until the Constitution is changed.

The courts cannot alter the bill of rights, it's not their job only Congress and 2/3rds of the states can do that
IT'S CALLED AMENDMENT

Your understanding of the US gov't is faulty. The SCOTUS can do pretty much what they like since they have the power to interpret. They can interpret the 2nd amendment to apply to militias or they can interpret it to mean individuals. They have done both:

• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[17][18]
• In Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense.[19][20]

No, it's you that has the faulty understanding the courts cannot make laws they cannot legislate from the bench
They cannot rule against historical documents such as the second amendment
That right is as old as this country is. Guns in the hands of private citizens are the reason we have those other rights.
Miller didn't legislate a new second amendment it created a concrete foundation that embeds the right to keep arms in the hands of private citizens
And if Miller would have had representation at the hearing the NFA would have been struck down

 

[Slade3200]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

I have no problem prosecuting straw buyers... but if we had it your way anybody could buy from gun stores and there would be no need for straw buyers. It wouldn’t be a crime to straw buy. So your arguments conflict with eachother. You either believe in infringing on the 2nd amendment and regulating who buys guns thus making straw buying a crime... or you don’t. Which is it?

Nope....I am fine with the current background check system for licensed gun stores and gun sellers......what we need is an instant system where you plug in the soc. sec. number and name and you see if the buyer is a felon.....gun stores need access to the actual data base cops use when they pull you over for a traffic ticket. We are stuck with that system....so being reasonable I will live with that....but no to universal background checks. They are pointless and useless.......

The current system doesn't stop criminals or mass shooters but I will leave it in place since, like masks, it is security theater....

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a felon.......we don't need universal background checks to do that......

Ok so you are being reasonable by supporting the current system but if you could have it your way would you do BG checks and restrict felons from owning firearms? Do you think those regulations are constitutional and effective?

Gun stores checking to see if you are a felon is likely Constitutional....for the sale of private property...no. ..And background checks.......they are not effective...as our gun crime rates in democrat party controlled cities show.

I’m curious. Do you personally know anybody who wants a gun but is unable to get one because of overregulation?

 

[2aguy]

first of all you don’t know which laws I support or don’t support.

In this case do you think the guy with the record should be able to waltz into that store and buy a gun no questions asked?

Yes, he should be able to buy a gun, no questions asked. It's not the ownership of a gun that should make a criminal, it's what a person does with the gun. That the guy 2aguy mention, the one that shot 3 cops, was not able to legally buy a gun didn't stop him from getting a gun and shooting 3 cops. Being in prison for the entire legally possible time for armed robbery would have stopped him from shooting these cops.

I disagree I think limiting who we sell guns to makes a difference. I don’t think it stops everybody from getting a gun but it stops some. Plus every time the cops bust a straw buyer or an illegal gun transaction they are preventing guns from being obtained and used which would not happen if anybody could simply go buy from a store

They easily without universal background checks or registration, but, as my earlier post showed...prosecutors do not go after straw buyers and put them away for long prison sentences......

We do not need new gun laws....we need democrat party judges and prosecutors to keep violent, repeat gun offenders in jail...

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

I have no problem prosecuting straw buyers... but if we had it your way anybody could buy from gun stores and there would be no need for straw buyers. It wouldn’t be a crime to straw buy. So your arguments conflict with eachother. You either believe in infringing on the 2nd amendment and regulating who buys guns thus making straw buying a crime... or you don’t. Which is it?

Nope....I am fine with the current background check system for licensed gun stores and gun sellers......what we need is an instant system where you plug in the soc. sec. number and name and you see if the buyer is a felon.....gun stores need access to the actual data base cops use when they pull you over for a traffic ticket. We are stuck with that system....so being reasonable I will live with that....but no to universal background checks. They are pointless and useless.......

The current system doesn't stop criminals or mass shooters but I will leave it in place since, like masks, it is security theater....

It is already illegal to sell a gun to a felon.......we don't need universal background checks to do that......

Ok so you are being reasonable by supporting the current system but if you could have it your way would you do BG checks and restrict felons from owning firearms? Do you think those regulations are constitutional and effective?

Gun stores checking to see if you are a felon is likely Constitutional....for the sale of private property...no. ..And background checks.......they are not effective...as our gun crime rates in democrat party controlled cities show.

I’m curious. Do you personally know anybody who wants a gun but is unable to get one because of overregulation?

Guns? Yes....my brother and his wife have applied for a Firearm Owners I.D. card weeks ago.......without that card they can't buy or own a gun.....they are not criminals, they are law abiding...but because of the back log created by our Governor taking funds from the State Police for exactly the reason of slowing down the process....they can't get a gun. They aren't the only people.......I am have been waiting even longer to get my renewed FOID card....

For Concealed carry permits here in Illinois...my boss at work works 80 hours a week and couldn't find the time to get 16 hours of training to get his concealed carry permit......

And I know a few people here on the board who live in states where it is pretty much impossible to get concealed carry permits, and I know John Stossel, the reporter....was denied a concealed carry permit.....