They Don't Care Who Has A Gun

[RetiredGySgt]

[




I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Universal background checks are absolutely the wrong thing to do:

It will never stop a crook from getting a firearm to commit a crime. There may be hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to purchase a gun through a background system but it will never stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants one. It is an unnecessary burden.

Many bad guys can pass a background check because they are not in the system. We have seen that a few times lately, haven't we? If they have trouble with the system then they have plenty of other options to get a firearm.

However, more importantly it is the government requiring permission to enjoy a Constitutional right that is very wrong. If we have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on.

If they can require permission to adhere to the 2nd amendment then they can it for the 1st and all the others, can't they? You want to get permission from the government before you are allowed to go to church or voice an opinion? How about the 13th? The government has to deem you worthy before you are exempt from slavery.

As Life Member of the NRA I am disappoint that they don't fight UBC harder than they do. They hardly did anything in Washington State as an example and look what happen.

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

Few? Every sale everywhere that uses an FFL is required to have a BACKGROUND check. That includes gunshows.

Licensed dealers at gun shows certainly have to do a background check. Unlicensed sellers don't. They can sell a gun to anybody, anywhere, when ever they want to. Gun shows, their front porch, a street corner, the trunk of their car, anywhere. I know what you are probably going to say next. An unlicensed seller is only allowed to sell a limited number of guns per year. OK, but with no record of any of the sales, the only way to tell if they reached that number is to witness every single sale they make. That won't happen.

Very few firearms are sold in gun shows that are not by licensed dealers.

 

[BULLDOG]

[




I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Universal background checks are absolutely the wrong thing to do:

It will never stop a crook from getting a firearm to commit a crime. There may be hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to purchase a gun through a background system but it will never stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants one. It is an unnecessary burden.

Many bad guys can pass a background check because they are not in the system. We have seen that a few times lately, haven't we? If they have trouble with the system then they have plenty of other options to get a firearm.

However, more importantly it is the government requiring permission to enjoy a Constitutional right that is very wrong. If we have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on.

If they can require permission to adhere to the 2nd amendment then they can it for the 1st and all the others, can't they? You want to get permission from the government before you are allowed to go to church or voice an opinion? How about the 13th? The government has to deem you worthy before you are exempt from slavery.

As Life Member of the NRA I am disappoint that they don't fight UBC harder than they do. They hardly did anything in Washington State as an example and look what happen.

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

Few? Every sale everywhere that uses an FFL is required to have a BACKGROUND check. That includes gunshows.

Licensed dealers at gun shows certainly have to do a background check. Unlicensed sellers don't. They can sell a gun to anybody, anywhere, when ever they want to. Gun shows, their front porch, a street corner, the trunk of their car, anywhere. I know what you are probably going to say next. An unlicensed seller is only allowed to sell a limited number of guns per year. OK, but with no record of any of the sales, the only way to tell if they reached that number is to witness every single sale they make. That won't happen.

Very few firearms are sold in gun shows that are not by licensed dealers.

Come on down here to Houston. I can show you stuff to change your mind.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you have trouble with the words LEGAL and ILLEGAL guns?

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

Never said all guns. I said virtually all guns. The main one that surprises me is the only one that can assure the wrong person can't shoot it. The NRA shut down the sale of smart guns that are useless if stolen, or in the hands of the wrong person. Why do they oppose that?

Because they don't work.

You're saying they won't fire a bullet out their barrel? What exactly doesn't work about them?

The safety feature is intermittent, it is easily spoofed and fails all the time.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

The NRA has never supported the use of a gun in a crime. If you were a member then you would know stuff like that. it is obvious that the only thing you know about the NRA is what the Moon Bat shitheads on MSMBC tell you.

This guy the court ruled on never used a gun in a crime from what I read but had his rights taken away almost 30 years ago and it was a good thing that his rights were finally restored, don't you think?

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Dude, you are too stupid to breed.

And congratulations! You just inspired me to donate $100 each to the NRA and GOAL.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is one problem with trying to add a mental health component to existing background checks...the irrational anti gun nuts will then try to use any interaction with a mental health practitioner as a reason to grab an individual's gun rights....

never, ever, trust an anti gunner...

How long before treatment for depression at age 16 will disqualify someone from owning a gun for life?

 

[BULLDOG]

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

Never said all guns. I said virtually all guns. The main one that surprises me is the only one that can assure the wrong person can't shoot it. The NRA shut down the sale of smart guns that are useless if stolen, or in the hands of the wrong person. Why do they oppose that?

Because they don't work.

You're saying they won't fire a bullet out their barrel? What exactly doesn't work about them?

The safety feature is intermittent, it is easily spoofed and fails all the time.

So the NRA opposes that particular gun because it isn't 100% dependable. Sorry, but if they were going to use that reason, they should have come out against 32 cal long ago. The safety feature is subject to a lot of discussion, but even if it never worked the first time, how would it be deserving of being banned? Is it any more dangerous than any other gun?

 

[OKTexas]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

How about providing one example where this actually happened.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Do you have trouble with the words LEGAL and ILLEGAL guns?

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

Never said all guns. I said virtually all guns. The main one that surprises me is the only one that can assure the wrong person can't shoot it. The NRA shut down the sale of smart guns that are useless if stolen, or in the hands of the wrong person. Why do they oppose that?

Mostly, because some states (Jersey, for one) have passed laws that if a "smart" gun is sold there, ALL OTHER GUNS can no longer be sold!

 

[Jarlaxle]

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

I oppose all background checks for the two reasons I stated above.

I can't speak for other NRA members but I think the NRA is weak on opposing background checks. They should fight it harder.

If my fellow NRA members supports background checks then I don't think they thought it through very well.

Most of my friends that I shoot with are against the checks so I really don't know where the support comes from.

There is an element in the NRA who we call "Fudds" (like in Elmer Fudd). They just want to protect their one shot hunting rifle and that is about it. They don't like the more modern firearms and they side with the Liberals on several issues like an assault weapons ban.

Maybe that is who you are talking a bout.

Got it. You believe anybody should be able to buy a gun any time they want, and there should be no limitations on the sale of guns even if it is to a gang of thugs who will probably use them to rob and murder. No checks of any kind. They have the money, they get the gun. What a crazy idea.

No matter how many times you post that, it is still a lie!

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

The NRA has never supported the use of a gun in a crime. If you were a member then you would know stuff like that. it is obvious that the only thing you know about the NRA is what the Moon Bat shitheads on MSMBC tell you.

This guy the court ruled on never used a gun in a crime from what I read but had his rights taken away almost 30 years ago and it was a good thing that his rights were finally restored, don't you think?

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Dude, you are too stupid to breed.

And congratulations! You just inspired me to donate $100 each to the NRA and GOAL.

Are you trying to say that a universal background check wouldn't stop many thugs from buying a particular gun?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

The NRA has never supported the use of a gun in a crime. If you were a member then you would know stuff like that. it is obvious that the only thing you know about the NRA is what the Moon Bat shitheads on MSMBC tell you.

This guy the court ruled on never used a gun in a crime from what I read but had his rights taken away almost 30 years ago and it was a good thing that his rights were finally restored, don't you think?

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Dude, you are too stupid to breed.

And congratulations! You just inspired me to donate $100 each to the NRA and GOAL.

Are you trying to say that a universal background check wouldn't stop many thugs from buying a particular gun?

It would not.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Absolutely correct!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"They Don't Care Who Has A Gun"

Whether they do or not has no bearing on the case; those who have been adjudicated mentally ill in accordance with the law and afforded all applicable due process still won't be allowed to own firearms.

But in jurisdictions that make no effort to accommodate those seeking to regain the right to possess a firearm, such a deficiency would not be valid grounds to indeed prohibit possession:

From the ruling:

'Tyler alleges that he will not present a danger, and he presents evidence to support that claim. If he lived in a state with a government-certified program, he could potentially regain his Second Amendment right. Because he resides in Michigan, he can never possess a gun, unless Michigan chooses to join the federal program. What is at stake is more than just “influencing a State’s policy choices.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992). It is the protection of the Second Amendment. For these reasons, § 922(g)(4)’s mental-commitment prohibition’s application to Tyler does not satisfy narrow tailoring.'

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0296p-06.pdf

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Do you have trouble with the words LEGAL and ILLEGAL guns?

No trouble at all. The NRA advocates for virtually all guns to be legal.

Show me where the NRA advocates for ALL GUNS to be legal...INCLUDING those possessed by criminals.

Never said all guns. I said virtually all guns. The main one that surprises me is the only one that can assure the wrong person can't shoot it. The NRA shut down the sale of smart guns that are useless if stolen, or in the hands of the wrong person. Why do they oppose that?

Mostly, because some states (Jersey, for one) have passed laws that if a "smart" gun is sold there, ALL OTHER GUNS can no longer be sold!

New Jersey offered to change that law, but the NRA didn't care.

 

[Howey]

[




I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Universal background checks are absolutely the wrong thing to do:

It will never stop a crook from getting a firearm to commit a crime. There may be hundreds of thousands of people denied the right to purchase a gun through a background system but it will never stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants one. It is an unnecessary burden.

Many bad guys can pass a background check because they are not in the system. We have seen that a few times lately, haven't we? If they have trouble with the system then they have plenty of other options to get a firearm.

However, more importantly it is the government requiring permission to enjoy a Constitutional right that is very wrong. If we have to get permission from the government then the Bill of Rights is not worth the parchment it is written on.

If they can require permission to adhere to the 2nd amendment then they can it for the 1st and all the others, can't they? You want to get permission from the government before you are allowed to go to church or voice an opinion? How about the 13th? The government has to deem you worthy before you are exempt from slavery.

As Life Member of the NRA I am disappoint that they don't fight UBC harder than they do. They hardly did anything in Washington State as an example and look what happen.

So do you oppose the few background checks we already do? They are no more perfect at eliminating all bad guys than universal checks would be. If so, how does that effect the claim that the NRA and it's members support the present background check requirements?

Few? Every sale everywhere that uses an FFL is required to have a BACKGROUND check. That includes gunshows.

Licensed dealers at gun shows certainly have to do a background check. Unlicensed sellers don't. They can sell a gun to anybody, anywhere, when ever they want to. Gun shows, their front porch, a street corner, the trunk of their car, anywhere. I know what you are probably going to say next. An unlicensed seller is only allowed to sell a limited number of guns per year. OK, but with no record of any of the sales, the only way to tell if they reached that number is to witness every single sale they make. That won't happen.

Very few firearms are sold in gun shows that are not by licensed dealers.

You seem to blabber shit out of your mouth without ever realizing what a braindead fool you are. I'd wager more guns are sold illegally at gun shows than legally.






Oh look! I was right!

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

Similarly, a study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) in June 2000 reviewed over 1,500 ATF investigations and concluded that gun shows are a “major trafficking channel,” associated with approximately 26,000 firearms diverted from legal to illegal commerce.7 According to the study, gun shows rank second to corrupt dealers as a source for illegally trafficked firearms.8 Another study explained that, while violent criminals do not buy most of their guns directly from gun shows, gun shows are “the critical moment in the chain of custody for many guns, the point at which they move from the somewhat-regulated legal market to the shadowy, no-questions-asked illegal market.”9

Gun shows are a popular venue for “private sales” in which unlicensed sellers can sell guns without background checks. A 1999 ATF study found that 25 to 50% of gun show vendors are unlicensed.10 These private sellers frequently rent table space at gun shows and carry or post “Private Sale” signs signalling that purchases require no paperwork, no background check, no waiting period and no recordkeeping.11

A 2009 undercover investigation by the City of New York at gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee “observed many private sellers doing brisk business at gun shows.”12 The investigators tested whether firearms dealers and private sellers would conduct what appeared to be illegal transactions, and found that:

• When investigators claimed that they “probably” could not pass background checks, 19 of 30 private sellers (63%) were still willing to complete the firearm sale;13 and
• When investigators approached licensed dealers and appeared to conduct straw purchases on behalf of prohibited people, 16 of 17 dealers (94%) were willing to complete these transactions.14

In a subsequent investigation – conducted at a Phoenix gun show just a few weeks after the Tucson massacre – an investigator successfully purchased guns from two private sellers despite informing both that he “probably couldn’t pass” a background check.15

A September 2010 report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that states that do not require background checks for all handgun sales at gun shows are the source of crime guns recovered in other states at a rate more than two and a half times greater than states that do.16 None of the ten states that are most frequently the sources of crime guns when population is taken into account require background checks at gun shows.17

 

[Kosh]

Well once again the far left shows their hypocrisy with these types of threads..

Since he was considered "mentally ill" should they be allowed to get "Married" or have children?

 

[BULLDOG]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

The NRA has never supported the use of a gun in a crime. If you were a member then you would know stuff like that. it is obvious that the only thing you know about the NRA is what the Moon Bat shitheads on MSMBC tell you.

This guy the court ruled on never used a gun in a crime from what I read but had his rights taken away almost 30 years ago and it was a good thing that his rights were finally restored, don't you think?

I was a member of the NRA for 25 years. Right up until they decided to worry more about politics than about gun safety. Opposing universal background checks which would prevent many thugs from getting guns has the same effect as guaranteeing their opportunity to be armed. The NRA has become one of a thugs best friends.

Dude, you are too stupid to breed.

And congratulations! You just inspired me to donate $100 each to the NRA and GOAL.

Are you trying to say that a universal background check wouldn't stop many thugs from buying a particular gun?

It would not.

Obviously, your mind is made up, so I won't continue confusing you with facts. Have a good day.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A 1999 ATF study found that 25 to 50% of gun show vendors are unlicensed

Wow, talk about dishonest. Not even mentioning the fact you went back fifteen years, many people at gun shows are "unlicensed", simply because (wait for it) they are not selling guns! And actually...the last one I went to, it was between 25 and 50% of the vendors! (Hell, my wife was an "unlicensed" vendor at one, helping someone selling holsters.)

 

[Howey]

Well once again the far left shows their hypocrisy with these types of threads..

Since he was considered "mentally ill" should they be allowed to get "Married" or have children?

What the **** does that have to do with anything???

 

[OKTexas]

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

Comrade Shitferbrains;

Can you show even a single instance of a person with a CC permit EVER, even once?

No?

You know why that is? You're a lying scumbag and a demagogue.

We're not discussing CC. We're discussing what the NRA stands for. They would prefer to do away with CC and allow open carry across the board.
Texas considers allowing open carry of handguns

Great, it's hard to carry concealed when it's 95 degrees outside and you're wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

 

[BULLDOG]

A 1999 ATF study found that 25 to 50% of gun show vendors are unlicensed

Wow, talk about dishonest. Not even mentioning the fact you went back fifteen years, many people at gun shows are "unlicensed", simply because (wait for it) they are not selling guns! And actually...the last one I went to, it was between 25 and 50% of the vendors! (Hell, my wife was an "unlicensed" vendor at one, helping someone selling holsters.)

Oddly, they don't call them holster shows. The large majority of what is sold at gun shows is (wait for it) guns. I noticed you only remarked about one study back in 99 but forgot to mention the much more recent data from 2009 and 2010.