Universal background checks... really?

[bigrebnc1775]

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The paranoid right wing is sad.

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

OK turn the tables on your stupid shit.
Build the wall if it saves the life of one American

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

Sure they do.
View attachment 278027

Which is why its a good idea to strengthen them.

FYI we already have background checks how many times does this have to be said?

 

[Rustic]

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

Sure they do.
View attachment 278027

Which is why its a good idea to strengthen them.

Na, not really

 

[hunarcy]

The driver should be institutionalized, where there's no chance of buying a gun OR a truck. Did not having a firearm make the driver less of a threat?

Yes.

Would someone who was driven over by the pick up be less injured or less dead?
f

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Why don't you want to effectively deal with these things and instead just focus on firearms?

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

Because I should be able to dispose of my private property without government interference. And, as we saw in the Sutherland Springs shooting (which you referenced), the government system doesn't work.

 

[candycorn]

Yes.

Not if they were hit directly. However when a bullet passes through soft tissue (or hard tissue as we saw with JFK), two or more people can be hit by the same bullet.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but we have a lot of INCELS gunning down people in our nation:

El Paso Walmart shooting
Virginia Beach shooting
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
Thousand Oaks shooting
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Santa Fe High School shooting
Las Vegas shooting
Sutherland Springs church shooting
Orlando nightclub shooting
San Bernardino attack
Washington Navy Yard shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Thats a lot of shootings….

Here are more…

Aurora theater shooting
Fort Hood shooting
Binghamton shootings
Geneva County massacre
Virginia Tech shooting
Columbine High School massacre
Luby's shooting

If you want to institutionalize everyone who was diagnosed with anger issues or worse…I think your remedy is a bit more invasive than I’d prefer but sure….anyway…the above is why I’m focusing on guns.

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

Because I should be able to dispose of my private property without government interference. And, as we saw in the Sutherland Springs shooting (which you referenced), the government system doesn't work.

Except the system does work to some degree….

Over 1.8 million people with documented criminal records and/or mental problems have been denied purchase of a weapon.

As for disposing of your private property, all sorts of regulations are in place that already prohibit that. You can’t buy beer for a minor, you can’t buy a gun for someone who is prohibited from doing so—which is all the private sales are doing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For example...this guy...,should he be allowed to own a firearm? He clearly has anger issues.

Does the law prohibit him from owning a firearm?
No?
Your opinion doesn't matter.

And the is the genesis of the problem we have with the massacre-of-the-month fans….

Yes.... people like you believe the state can just take guns from people when there is no law that prohibits them from having one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So diagnosed mental illness should exclude you from owning a firearm?

The law on this is very clear- "mental issues" do not prohibit the ownership of a firearm until after the person has been adjudicated - in a legal proceeding - as mentally infirm.
A simple diagnosis by a doctor does not meet due process.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except the system does work to some degree….
Over 1.8 million people with documented criminalrecords and/or mental problems have been denied purchase of a weapon.

How many of these people were investigated, charged and tried for the federal felonies they committed when trying to buy a gun?

 

[hunarcy]

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

Because I should be able to dispose of my private property without government interference. And, as we saw in the Sutherland Springs shooting (which you referenced), the government system doesn't work.

Except the system does work to some degree….

Over 1.8 million people with documented criminal records and/or mental problems have been denied purchase of a weapon.

As for disposing of your private property, all sorts of regulations are in place that already prohibit that. You can’t buy beer for a minor, you can’t buy a gun for someone who is prohibited from doing so—which is all the private sales are doing.

If that is the case, why aren't the 1.8 million people be prosecuted for trying to illegally obtain firearms? The lack of prosectution gives lie to the idea that you folks are sincere. If they are criminal, they need to be in jail. If they have paid their debt so society, why are they being further punished? And if they have mental problems, they need to be in a therapeutic setting being treated.

I CAN buy beer for a minor if the child is a member of my family. When Is It Ever Legal for Minors to Consume Alcohol? And, I should be able to dispose of my property as I see fit.

 

[candycorn]

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

Because I should be able to dispose of my private property without government interference. And, as we saw in the Sutherland Springs shooting (which you referenced), the government system doesn't work.

Except the system does work to some degree….

Over 1.8 million people with documented criminal records and/or mental problems have been denied purchase of a weapon.

As for disposing of your private property, all sorts of regulations are in place that already prohibit that. You can’t buy beer for a minor, you can’t buy a gun for someone who is prohibited from doing so—which is all the private sales are doing.

If that is the case, why aren't the 1.8 million people be prosecuted for trying to illegally obtain firearms? The lack of prosectution gives lie to the idea that you folks are sincere. If they are criminal, they need to be in jail. If they have paid their debt so society, why are they being further punished? And if they have mental problems, they need to be in a therapeutic setting being treated.

I CAN buy beer for a minor if the child is a member of my family. When Is It Ever Legal for Minors to Consume Alcohol? And, I should be able to dispose of my property as I see fit.

Fair points….I’d like to see the 1.8 million investigated and arrested myself. It doesn’t exclude the fact that the background checks did prevent 1.8 million people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them. We need to expand that to the parking lots.

You can’t buy beer for a kid who isn’t your child. It too is your property but you can’t do it. Just further illustrating that there are limits on your rights.

 

[candycorn]

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

Sure they do.
View attachment 278027

Which is why its a good idea to strengthen them.

FYI we already have background checks how many times does this have to be said?

Its like saying you have a roof over your living room so the other houses don’t need a roof. The background checks need to be expanded to close the gun show loophole.

 

[candycorn]

The paranoid right wing is sad.

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

OK turn the tables on your stupid shit.
Build the wall if it saves the life of one American

As we’ve seen with the rampage shootings…building the wall won’t stop rampage killings.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

OK turn the tables on your stupid shit.
Build the wall if it saves the life of one American

As we’ve seen with the rampage shootings…building the wall won’t stop rampage killings.

It would stop at least one

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

Sure they do.
View attachment 278027

Which is why its a good idea to strengthen them.

FYI we already have background checks how many times does this have to be said?

Its like saying you have a roof over your living room so the other houses don’t need a roof. The background checks need to be expanded to close the gun show loophole.

leftist created words do not exist in reality

 

[candycorn]

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

Sure they do.
View attachment 278027

Which is why its a good idea to strengthen them.

FYI we already have background checks how many times does this have to be said?

Its like saying you have a roof over your living room so the other houses don’t need a roof. The background checks need to be expanded to close the gun show loophole.

leftist created words do not exist in reality

Your vocabulary is so limited that you are not familiar with simple words?

 

[2aguy]

They're morons, I've spent too much time "debating" with a guy who thinks everything he types is a fact, without any proof and another one who just keeps parroting that there is no loophole in the law that allows people to get guns who shouldn't even though that very thing just happened.

I think Trump has dumbed down their game.

Nah, they were that dumb before Trump. There are numerous YouTube videos of people buying guns no questions asked. And the response is “More laws won’t stop that” which is true actually. But what laws do in many cases is deter behavior.

• I lived in an area that had water restrictions. You couldn’t water your lawn between 6AM and 6PM or something like that or you’d have to pay a fine. Guess what. I remember putting out the sprinkler at 6:30 and moving it every 30 minutes or so until 9 (it was one of those cheap 8” circle sprinklers). I saw other kids doing the same thing up and down the street.
• I’m old enough to remember the oil embargoes that forced us to only buy gas on days when your plate had an even or odd number. If you bought gas on days when you were not supposed to, you got fined. So we were in line with our cars on the proper days.
• When you try to catch the Bolivar Ferry over in Galveston, Texas, the DPS used to have a flashing sign on the road, “cut in line, pay a fine” is what it read.

Speed limits, sanitation laws for businesses, having to get rid of standing water on your property for code compliance, not shouting “fire” in a movie theater, not being profane at the DMV or in front of the judge. There are all sorts of things the government tries to curtail. Do they all work 100% of the time? No. Do they work some of the time? Yes. If it stops one massacre and saves 20 school kids…its worth it.

Adam Lanza should have never been in a house that had that arsenal. A law that prevents having guns in the house where you have a person who was diagnosed as a mentally unstable adult is just common sense. You don’t have to give up your weapons; you simply can’t keep them in the house...and there will certainly be waivers granted in special circumstances. Not all who are mentally unstable are dangerous, obviously.

nothing spells tyrannical like a useless law.

If it prevents one bloodbath and kids who are scarred for life even if they’re not hit…well worth the 20 minutes of inconvenience to sell a weapon.

Oh but wait…you have to be human to realize this. Disregard

OK turn the tables on your stupid shit.
Build the wall if it saves the life of one American

As we’ve seen with the rampage shootings…building the wall won’t stop rampage killings.

It will help stop illegal aliens raping and murdering U.S. citizens.

 

[2aguy]

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

Because I should be able to dispose of my private property without government interference. And, as we saw in the Sutherland Springs shooting (which you referenced), the government system doesn't work.

Except the system does work to some degree….

Over 1.8 million people with documented criminal records and/or mental problems have been denied purchase of a weapon.

As for disposing of your private property, all sorts of regulations are in place that already prohibit that. You can’t buy beer for a minor, you can’t buy a gun for someone who is prohibited from doing so—which is all the private sales are doing.

Wrong..... those were majority false positives for people who had names similar to the names of actual Criminals...as John Lott says, they don't even match criminals to criminals in background checks the way any other business would have to do in a background check, that is why you get so many false positives..

And criminals use straw buyers to get their guns or they steal them...you dope.

Private sales are not where criminals get their guns....they use their baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, sisters, or they buy them from other criminals who did the same thing or stole the guns......

 

[2aguy]

am glad you agree that the person should be institutionalized.

I would point out that one bullet did not kill 86 people or hurt 458 others as was done with one truck on Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France in 2016.

Most of the shootings you listed were done by people who had previous contact with the police, but no effective action was taken. Of course, there is the occasional terrorist attack, like San Bernardino, but even then, they shockingly did not follow the law and instead used illegally modified weapons and weapons that were purchased by a neighbor. The focus on the firearm does nothing to prevent such incidents.

But, I'm sure you have no problem limiting the rights of EVERYONE because a few refuse to follow the law.

When the alternative are monthly blood baths…you’re right….I have no problem limiting the availability of firearms.

Good point about the truck, by the way.

If the firearm was randomly shooting people, I'd agree. But, the problem is human behavior, which your solution does not address at all.

Oh, and thank you.

My solution? The solution that goes... That if you want to sell your gun to an individual, you both go down to the courthouse and a background check is done on the buyer won’t keep the hands out of those who shouldn’t have guns? Its effectively the same (and less prosecutorial) as your solution to lock people up so they won’t get firearms.

Will it stop every under-the-table sale? No. But, as most gun owners are honest people, sales will often be done within the confines of the law.

Again, unless one is a whack job who shouldn’t have a gun…I’m not sure why anyone is against such a thing outside of the paranoid schism that somehow it matters to those who drive tanks and APCs that you’re packing a revolver.

Because I should be able to dispose of my private property without government interference. And, as we saw in the Sutherland Springs shooting (which you referenced), the government system doesn't work.

Except the system does work to some degree….

Over 1.8 million people with documented criminal records and/or mental problems have been denied purchase of a weapon.

As for disposing of your private property, all sorts of regulations are in place that already prohibit that. You can’t buy beer for a minor, you can’t buy a gun for someone who is prohibited from doing so—which is all the private sales are doing.

You are wrong...

Op-ed in the New York Times: Background Checks Are Not the Answer to Gun Violence - Crime Prevention Research Center

The background check system confuses the names of law-abiding individuals with those of criminals, resulting in thousands of “false positives” every year. Relying on phonetically similar names along with birth dates just doesn’t allow for much accuracy.

Ronnie Coleman, a Virginia resident, was not allowed to buy a gun in 2012 because another person from his hometown in Texas who had a felony conviction also had a name and birth date “close enough” to his to cause a denial. Mr. Coleman was advised to get a unique transaction number from the background system to prevent this confusion in the future, adding another bureaucratic step to the process.

Between 2006 to 2010, the last period for which more comprehensive annual data on the denial of firearm applications by the background check system are available, there were 377,283 denials. But the federal government prosecuted only 460 of those cases, leading to 209 convictions, mostly on charges of providing false information. There was a similarly small number of state prosecutions resulting from the gun purchase denials.

Why didn’t more of those denials lead to perjury prosecutions? According to my analysis, the reason is simple: a high percentage of cases are dropped because the applicant was wrongly denied clearance to buy a gun.

Many of those people are trying to buy guns to protect themselves. “This incredibly high rate of false positives imposes a real burden on the most vulnerable people,” said Reagan Dunn, the first national coordinator for Project Safe Neighborhoods, a Justice Department program started in 2001 to ensure gun laws are enforced.. . . .

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Lol
Background checks will not prevent anything....

Sure they do.
View attachment 278027

Which is why its a good idea to strengthen them.

FYI we already have background checks how many times does this have to be said?

Its like saying you have a roof over your living room so the other houses don’t need a roof. The background checks need to be expanded to close the gun show loophole.

leftist created words do not exist in reality

Your vocabulary is so limited that you are not familiar with simple words?

Your dodge has been noted. But you used a leftist created word that has no meaning on reality. No such thing as a gun show loop hole

 

[Lesh]

There absolutely is a gun show loop hole and the most recent mass shooter USED it to buy his assault rifle

The only thing stopping Universal Back Ground checks is Moscow Mitch