Mother shoots home invader

[zeke]

AH hell, just make it easy. No mandatory back ground checks. BUT if you are a gun seller and sell a weapon without doing a background check, and this person you sold to couldn't legally own a weapon and commits a murder or crime with the gun you sold them, you die.

Think that might slow down the rate of sales to people who couldn't pass a background check?

 

[zeke]

I think that all gun sales should come with a background check, not just the 60 percent that is sold in stores. 40 percent of all gun sales are done at gun shows where a check isn't required, and many don't do it.

Why do you insist on repeating this LIE?

First, 40% of all gun sales DO NOT take place at gun shows. The VAST majority of that 40% figure that you folks love to parrot comes from ownership transfers WITHIN FAMILIES. Inheritances, gifts and sales to FAMILY MEMBERS.

FFL licensed dealers are REQUIRED to perform background checks REGARDLESS of the location of the sale, INCLUDING gun shows. The ONLY people not required to do so are PRIVATE citizens, and they account for less than 10% of sellers at gun shows.

i've bought more than a dozen guns at gun shows. hmmm, every one of them had a background check. Libs crack me up with this gun show loophole that doesn't exist

And I know of two people that couldn't legally (one a felon, one a domestic abuser) own a weapon, but were able to buy from private sellers. With no problem.

What is your point?

 

[Spoonman]

Why do you insist on repeating this LIE?

First, 40% of all gun sales DO NOT take place at gun shows. The VAST majority of that 40% figure that you folks love to parrot comes from ownership transfers WITHIN FAMILIES. Inheritances, gifts and sales to FAMILY MEMBERS.

FFL licensed dealers are REQUIRED to perform background checks REGARDLESS of the location of the sale, INCLUDING gun shows. The ONLY people not required to do so are PRIVATE citizens, and they account for less than 10% of sellers at gun shows.

i've bought more than a dozen guns at gun shows. hmmm, every one of them had a background check. Libs crack me up with this gun show loophole that doesn't exist

And I know of two people that couldn't legally (one a felon, one a domestic abuser) own a weapon, but were able to buy from private sellers. With no problem.

What is your point?

at a gun show? and what were the laws of that state

 

[GuyPinestra]

Why do you insist on repeating this LIE?

First, 40% of all gun sales DO NOT take place at gun shows. The VAST majority of that 40% figure that you folks love to parrot comes from ownership transfers WITHIN FAMILIES. Inheritances, gifts and sales to FAMILY MEMBERS.

FFL licensed dealers are REQUIRED to perform background checks REGARDLESS of the location of the sale, INCLUDING gun shows. The ONLY people not required to do so are PRIVATE citizens, and they account for less than 10% of sellers at gun shows.

i've bought more than a dozen guns at gun shows. hmmm, every one of them had a background check. Libs crack me up with this gun show loophole that doesn't exist

And I know of two people that couldn't legally (one a felon, one a domestic abuser) own a weapon, but were able to buy from private sellers. With no problem.

What is your point?

Why haven't you turned them in? Relatives?

 

[Spoonman]

i've bought more than a dozen guns at gun shows. hmmm, every one of them had a background check. Libs crack me up with this gun show loophole that doesn't exist

And I know of two people that couldn't legally (one a felon, one a domestic abuser) own a weapon, but were able to buy from private sellers. With no problem.

What is your point?

Why haven't you turned them in? Relatives?

he worls for eric holder. its not like he is going to turn in his boss for illegal arms dealing

 

[RDD_1210]

exactly. it's not whether you are pro gun or not, it's whether you are pro rights

Good point and the "right" to own a gun should certainly trump a 5 year olds right to not be shot in the face at school. Fuck yeah! 'Murica!

It does. It even trumps a LOT of 5 year olds' right to not be shot in school. Those are tragedies, but they are not worth giving up guns over.

No? What is worth it? How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

 

[Spoonman]

Good point and the "right" to own a gun should certainly trump a 5 year olds right to not be shot in the face at school. Fuck yeah! 'Murica!

It does. It even trumps a LOT of 5 year olds' right to not be shot in school. Those are tragedies, but they are not worth giving up guns over.

No? What is worth it? How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

lets start enforcing existing laws first. you can't enforce a law, why change it?

 

[RDD_1210]

It does. It even trumps a LOT of 5 year olds' right to not be shot in school. Those are tragedies, but they are not worth giving up guns over.

No? What is worth it? How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

lets start enforcing existing laws first. you can't enforce a law, why change it?

Right, that certainly is a start.

 

[Spoonman]

No? What is worth it? How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

lets start enforcing existing laws first. you can't enforce a law, why change it?

Right, that certainly is a start.

lets get that part right before we change anything. changing unenforcable laws does nothing.

as you said - How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

and what needs to change is enforcing existing laws and stop saying ok, we changed it. that will take care of it when nothing happens. the last gun ban did nothing. nothing at all. what makes you think a new one will have any effect? it won't

 

[RDD_1210]

lets start enforcing existing laws first. you can't enforce a law, why change it?

Right, that certainly is a start.

lets get that part right before we change anything. changing unenforcable laws does nothing.

as you said - How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

and what needs to change is enforcing existing laws and stop saying ok, we changed it. that will take care of it when nothing happens. the last gun ban did nothing. nothing at all. what makes you think a new one will have any effect? it won't

Enforcement is a MAJOR part of the solution. That combined with the right laws.

 

[zeke]

i've bought more than a dozen guns at gun shows. hmmm, every one of them had a background check. Libs crack me up with this gun show loophole that doesn't exist

And I know of two people that couldn't legally (one a felon, one a domestic abuser) own a weapon, but were able to buy from private sellers. With no problem.

What is your point?

Why haven't you turned them in? Relatives?

One killed himself with the weapon he bought. And the other is a relative.

Reason I didn't turn them in. Well the one who killed himself I did try. And the other one sold the gun he bought (privater sell to a thug I am sure) when he realized how big a problem he would have if caught with it. I guess, in a way, the law worked for him. And us. He should not have had a weapon.

Then again, I know of a Rethug that avoids paying any income tax on wages by simply taking cash from the drawer in a famliy owned business. I haven't turned them in either.

You think I should? Would you have turned any of them in to the law?

 

[Spoonman]

Right, that certainly is a start.

lets get that part right before we change anything. changing unenforcable laws does nothing.

as you said - How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

and what needs to change is enforcing existing laws and stop saying ok, we changed it. that will take care of it when nothing happens. the last gun ban did nothing. nothing at all. what makes you think a new one will have any effect? it won't

Enforcement is a MAJOR part of the solution. That combined with the right laws.

and the right laws would be to abide by the constitutution and not infringe on the rights of gun owners

 

[RDD_1210]

lets get that part right before we change anything. changing unenforcable laws does nothing.

as you said - How many innocent people need to be murdered before you feel the need to change something dramatically in this country?

and what needs to change is enforcing existing laws and stop saying ok, we changed it. that will take care of it when nothing happens. the last gun ban did nothing. nothing at all. what makes you think a new one will have any effect? it won't

Enforcement is a MAJOR part of the solution. That combined with the right laws.

and the right laws would be to abide by the constitutution and not infringe on the rights of gun owners

False. You were doing so well too. Shame.

 

[Spoonman]

Enforcement is a MAJOR part of the solution. That combined with the right laws.

and the right laws would be to abide by the constitutution and not infringe on the rights of gun owners

False. You were doing so well too. Shame.

nope, that is not false. start your own country if you don't agree with the founding priciples of this one.

 

[RDD_1210]

and the right laws would be to abide by the constitutution and not infringe on the rights of gun owners

False. You were doing so well too. Shame.

nope, that is not false. start your own country if you don't agree with the founding priciples of this one.

I agree with the founding principles, just not your interpretation of them. Big difference.

 

[Spoonman]

False. You were doing so well too. Shame.

nope, that is not false. start your own country if you don't agree with the founding priciples of this one.

I agree with the founding principles, just not your interpretation of them. Big difference.

shall not infringe has one meaning. as soon as you open it up to interpretation that revised meaning can be applied to any right. Next, the type of speech that is acceptable could come under attack, because we can now infringe upon it by the new definition. you limit something, you have infringed on it. Had the intent been to limit, they would have written that into the bill of rights. But htey didn't, they were specific in saying that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[RDD_1210]

nope, that is not false. start your own country if you don't agree with the founding priciples of this one.

I agree with the founding principles, just not your interpretation of them. Big difference.

shall not infringe has one meaning. as soon as you open it up to interpretation that revised meaning can be applied to any right. Next, the type of speech that is acceptable could come under attack, because we can now infringe upon it by the new definition. you limit something, you have infringed on it. Had the intent been to limit, they would have written that into the bill of rights. But htey didn't, they were specific in saying that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They were also pretty specific that those bearing arms should be "well regulated" but this is where your biased interpretation comes in to play.

 

[Spoonman]

I agree with the founding principles, just not your interpretation of them. Big difference.

shall not infringe has one meaning. as soon as you open it up to interpretation that revised meaning can be applied to any right. Next, the type of speech that is acceptable could come under attack, because we can now infringe upon it by the new definition. you limit something, you have infringed on it. Had the intent been to limit, they would have written that into the bill of rights. But htey didn't, they were specific in saying that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They were also pretty specific that those bearing arms should be "well regulated" but this is where your biased interpretation comes in to play.

no a well regulated militia, not well regulated arms