Remind Us how Obama does not want our firearms.

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, if they want them.

No one ever said any law is perfect. Obviously we are better off with such laws.

How many of the firearms used weekly on the South side of Chicago do you think were attained legally?

How many criminals to you think get their guns by walking into a gun store, and passing a background check?

They don't care about background checks.

no matter how tight you make the requirements, criminals are NOT going to say, "oops, I can't pass a background check, I better turn in my guns"

They laugh at people like you.

Actually, I do as well.

Man you people are dense. I am well aware criminals are going to get guns no matter what. The point is that strict laws of background checks and registration make it so LESS criminals get guns. This is simple logic.

The point is that strict laws of background checks and registration make it so LESS criminals get guns. This is simple logic.

There is NO logic to believing criminals are going to worry about either background checks, or registration.

Where do you people get these ideas?

Criminal breaks into a house, or a store, and steals a gun, you think they are going to waste time filling out background check paperwork?

think they are going to leave their name and address so the weapon can be registered?

What dimension do you people live in?

Carriages pulled by unicorns over rainbows?

Pink skies with lavender clouds?

there is no 'logic' in your post at all

Try to think about this realistically will you? If ANYONE can get a gun without background checks, they wouldn't have to bother robbing a store to get one. Robbing a store means risk of failure. Obviously not every criminal is going to try and rob a place to get a gun. They run the risk of going to prison. That means LESS of them will try. LESS of them will end up getting a gun.

No one CAN legally buy a firearm from a licensed dealer without a background check that is and has been federal law for QUITE some time now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Remind Us how Obama does not want our firearms."

Obama doesn't want our firearms.

Anyone who maintains otherwise is an ignorant idiot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

7 years since his election- 7 years of predictions that Obama will be seizing your guns.
7 years of gullible and paranoid gun enthusiasts making gun manufacturers wealthy
And 7 years without guns being seized.

Because.... he hasn't had the political power to enact his anti-gun agenda, even when the Dems held Congress..
If he had the political power to enact that agenda, there's no argument that he would not.

'there's no argument that he would not'

Despite any evidence that he wants to take your guns away from you.

7 years since his election- 7 years of predictions that Obama will be seizing your guns.
7 years of gullible and paranoid gun enthusiasts making gun manufacturers wealthy
And 7 years without guns being seized

They are not rational. Someone keeps telling them there is a scary monster in the woods next to their village and they aren't educated enough to understand there is no monster. Their fear has become a trusted friend.

And yet, every tie someone shoots up a group of people, people like you tell us that our rights to arms needs to be further limited.

 

[Plasmaball]

He won't give up, and he's not planning on leaving office.

you are a moron. He is leaving

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why are their laws against owning fully auto .50 caliber machine guns then?

M2HB? Legal. Expensive,. But legal.

And why don't criminals have them?

They have no use for a weapon that is almost 6 feet long and weighs >100lbs.

The gun hugger arguments are ridiculous. "Why have laws, they don't protect anyone"?

An order of magnitude less ridiculous than thinking you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

Well then why do we have any laws at all.

To prosecute people when they do something they aren't supposed to do.

Gun lickers have an irrational fear of life and a gun seems to be the only pacifier that feels comfortable in their mouth.

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You do know that the first amendment has limitations right? Child pornography and defamation are both illegal. Shouldn't the 2nd as well?

You do know that child pornography and defamation harm other people, right? Me owning a gun does not harm other people. Me going on a killing spree with it obviously does, but last I checked that was already illegal.

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals. Is that really so invasive?

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals.

Nothing keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, if they want them.

No one ever said any law is perfect. Obviously we are better off with such laws.

How are we better off with laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the purpose to prevent certain people from getting guns that, in reality, do not prevent those people from getting guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Proper Gun Control......

Winning the Wimbledon Cup with a Brown Bess.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lack of US gun control Obama s greatest frustration - Yahoo News

He wants and expects new regulations on firearms specifically protected by the 2nd. Remind us again how Obama is not out to take firearms away again.

Want? Has he taken your guns yet? No, then that's proof ain't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Man you people are dense. I am well aware criminals are going to get guns no matter what. The point is that strict laws of background checks and registration make it so LESS criminals get guns. This is simple logic.

If that were true, you could prove your claim.
You cannot.

 

[CowboyTed]

So right to a gun has to have limitations too.

Tell us: What limitations are inherent to the right to arms?

Now to have loopholes in background checks is the same as having no background checks.

False.
There is no way to legally get around a background check when buying a gun rom a dealer, so there is no loophole.

What limitations are inherent to the right to arms?
Convicted Felon, Mentally Ill

Now to have loopholes in background checks is the same as having no background checks.
Do you know how google works.
Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks - The Washington Post

 

[Billy000]

You do know that the first amendment has limitations right? Child pornography and defamation are both illegal. Shouldn't the 2nd as well?

You do know that child pornography and defamation harm other people, right? Me owning a gun does not harm other people. Me going on a killing spree with it obviously does, but last I checked that was already illegal.

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals. Is that really so invasive?

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals.

Nothing keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, if they want them.

No one ever said any law is perfect. Obviously we are better off with such laws.

How are we better off with laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the purpose to prevent certain people from getting guns that, in reality, do not prevent those people from getting guns?

Yes there are flaws. Let's fix them. Republicans prevent this.

You people need to learn to compromise. I'm not talking about banning any types. Just strict background checks.

 

[CowboyTed]

7 years since his election- 7 years of predictions that Obama will be seizing your guns.
7 years of gullible and paranoid gun enthusiasts making gun manufacturers wealthy
And 7 years without guns being seized.

Because.... he hasn't had the political power to enact his anti-gun agenda, even when the Dems held Congress..
If he had the political power to enact that agenda, there's no argument that he would not.

'there's no argument that he would not'
Despite any evidence that he wants to take your guns away from you.

The Obama openly wants to ban rifles, pistols and shotguns.
Why has he not?
He hasn't had the political power to enact his anti-gun agenda, even when the Dems held Congress..
If he had the political power to enact that agenda, there's no question in any reasonable mind that he would have.
And so, your "point" here really means nothing.

Got any proof to that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one ever said any law is perfect. Obviously we are better off with such laws.

How many of the firearms used weekly on the South side of Chicago do you think were attained legally?

How many criminals to you think get their guns by walking into a gun store, and passing a background check?

They don't care about background checks.

no matter how tight you make the requirements, criminals are NOT going to say, "oops, I can't pass a background check, I better turn in my guns"

They laugh at people like you.

Actually, I do as well.

Man you people are dense. I am well aware criminals are going to get guns no matter what. The point is that strict laws of background checks and registration make it so LESS criminals get guns. This is simple logic.

The point is that strict laws of background checks and registration make it so LESS criminals get guns. This is simple logic.

There is NO logic to believing criminals are going to worry about either background checks, or registration.

Where do you people get these ideas?

Criminal breaks into a house, or a store, and steals a gun, you think they are going to waste time filling out background check paperwork?

think they are going to leave their name and address so the weapon can be registered?

What dimension do you people live in?

Carriages pulled by unicorns over rainbows?

Pink skies with lavender clouds?

there is no 'logic' in your post at all

Try to think about this realistically will you? If ANYONE can get a gun without background checks, they wouldn't have to bother robbing a store to get one. Robbing a store means risk of failure. Obviously not every criminal is going to try and rob a place to get a gun. They run the risk of going to prison. That means LESS of them will try. LESS of them will end up getting a gun.

No one CAN legally buy a firearm from a licensed dealer without a background check that is and has been federal law for QUITE some time now.

And no government official – including the president of the United States – can 'take' a firearm from a private citizen against his will, that has been part of the Federal Constitution since the beginning of the Republic, the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments in particular.

 

[CowboyTed]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

So where can I get Child Porn?

I can't legally.

Does that mean Child Porn doesn't exist? No, but it is illegal.

So right to a gun has to have limitations too.

Now to have loopholes in background checks is the same as having no background checks.

So do the gun guys here want no background checks and if so how do you propose keeping guns out of undesirables hands.

There are people who have had their right to own firearms taken from them, if they're found with one you prosecute them, just like any other crime. No law is effective in preempting crime, if they were there would be no crime, you just deal with them when they occur.

Is it illegal to sell a minor a beer?

You are saying that there is no point because convicted felon will get a gun anyway. How, if it is illegal to sell it to him?

This is about cutting the supply to people who shouldn't have a gun.

 

[CowboyTed]

You do know that the first amendment has limitations right? Child pornography and defamation are both illegal. Shouldn't the 2nd as well?

You do know that child pornography and defamation harm other people, right? Me owning a gun does not harm other people. Me going on a killing spree with it obviously does, but last I checked that was already illegal.

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals. Is that really so invasive?

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals.

Nothing keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, if they want them.

You do know that the first amendment has limitations right? Child pornography and defamation are both illegal. Shouldn't the 2nd as well?

You do know that child pornography and defamation harm other people, right? Me owning a gun does not harm other people. Me going on a killing spree with it obviously does, but last I checked that was already illegal.

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals. Is that really so invasive?

Um yeah and strict background helps keep guns out of dangerous criminals.

Nothing keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, if they want them.

No one ever said any law is perfect. Obviously we are better off with such laws.

How many of the firearms used weekly on the South side of Chicago do you think were attained legally?

How many criminals to you think get their guns by walking into a gun store, and passing a background check?

They don't care about background checks.

no matter how tight you make the requirements, criminals are NOT going to say, "oops, I can't pass a background check, I better turn in my guns"

They laugh at people like you.

Actually, I do as well.

Seems like your full of shit.

Why does Chicago have so many illegal guns Al Jazeera America

This is the very law they want to bring in... The guy bought the guns legally in Indiana and resold them in Chicago. If the sale in Indiana was background checked and registered it is a lot easier for the cops to trace the gun.
If the can trace the source of illegal guns they can stop it. Less Illegal guns , less cops get shot and killed.

So question I have to ask you is why do you want more dead cops?

 

[my2¢]

I think we must consider what our founding fathers considered arms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think we must consider what our founding fathers considered arms.

Actually that's the responsibility of the Supreme Court, and they've already addressed the issue.

 

[S.J.]

He won't give up, and he's not planning on leaving office.

Oh really? How exactly does he plan on staying?

Probably some false flag operation to give him an excuse to declare martial law.

 

[S.J.]

He won't give up, and he's not planning on leaving office.

you are a moron. He is leaving

I didn't say he WOULDN'T leave, I said "he's not planning to leave". PS, you don't know enough to capitalize the first word of a sentence and you call me a moron?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why are their laws against owning fully auto .50 caliber machine guns then?

M2HB? Legal. Expensive,. But legal.

And why don't criminals have them?

They have no use for a weapon that is almost 6 feet long and weighs >100lbs.

The gun hugger arguments are ridiculous. "Why have laws, they don't protect anyone"?

An order of magnitude less ridiculous than thinking you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

Well then why do we have any laws at all.

To prosecute people when they do something they aren't supposed to do.

Gun lickers have an irrational fear of life and a gun seems to be the only pacifier that feels comfortable in their mouth.

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

You are so self-deluded.

Gun huggers know two emotions which seem to rule their every waking moment. Fear and anger.

Trying to speak rationally to these people is wasted time as they don't follow logic. Their mind twists everything into "the world is scary, be afraid".