Why would anyone object to Virginia’s new gun laws?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Try reading the Second and then tell me where it says arms are to be regulated.

And all I did was post a fact but I guess you see that as bitching

Try reading Scalia's opinion on Heller. That is fact as well.

Where in the second amendment does it say arms are to be regulated?

I've already referred you to the answer.

No you are dodging the question.

As usual

I provided the best explanation of the second as it exists today under the law.

Read it or don't but reserve your bitching for those who make such rulings.

You mean this:

"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)."

Where the Court CLEARLY dismisses the bullshit notion that a "well-regulated militia" gives power regulate firearms?



Also, take a look at this:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose."


.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I think you might live in the wrong country, you can’t infringe on my rights.. sorry buddy

Reality is you are wrong.
They ARE infringing and they will accelerate doing so.
Who's to stop them?

(NO ONE)

 

[2aguy]

So was Plessey at one time.

NYC's law are obviously unconstitutional, but you ignore them because they show the true goal of gun grabbing sissies like you.

Good luck

Why don’t you work on repealing NYC gun laws

Get yourself a nice gun rally like they had today

NYC's electorate is too apathetic and too set in their ways. The SC has to weigh in on laws so restrictive that their only goal is to deny RKBA to law abiding citizens.

Then it looks like you lose
Democracy is a ***** sometimes

But you do have the NRA to fight for you. Why don’t they challenge NYC laws?

They are working their way up to it. You keep arguing the how and not the why because you can't defend the why without looking like the gun grabbing zealot people on this board know you are.

The people of NYC have decided on the gun laws they want

They are safer for it

No, they aren't......they now have a democrat in charge and the murder rate is going up.

Murder rate rises 55 percent in New York City, NYPD statistics say

Murder rates in New York City are up 55 percent in 2019 compared to the same time frame in 2018, according to NYPD statistics.
----
The surge takes place as overall crime in New York City is down eight percent. The increase in murders is largely credited to a jump in violent crime in Northern Brooklyn. The ten precincts that comprise North Brooklyn have recorded 15 murders in the time frame this year, compared to just three last year -- a 400 percent increase.

The number of shootings that have not resulted in death are on the rise as well, with 22 people shot compared to 13 last year, a 69 percent jump.

 

[2aguy]

No. It's regulation. You still have the gun.
Infringement in this context means denying the right as Scalia stated in Heller.

Voting requires no such regulation.

The second says nothing about firearms regulations only the regulation of the militia

***** to SCOTUS.

Try reading the Second and then tell me where it says arms are to be regulated.

And all I did was post a fact but I guess you see that as bitching

Try reading Scalia's opinion on Heller. That is fact as well.

It's obvious that the person you replied to has only read the second amendment and nothing more of the constitution. Nor has that person read all of the second amendment.

It says well regulated militia in the second amendment. That's regulating arms.

In another part of the constitution it says that the government can regulate commerce. It's called the Commerce Clause. It's a simple one sentence giving the government the power to regulate commerce. That one simple sentence doesn't exempt weapons.

Buying and selling a weapon is commerce.

The very ignorant far right radical conservative you replied to has no clue what it's posting about.

You don't know what you are talking about......

Regulating the militia has nothing to do with the Right to keep and bear arms.......read Heller for once and find out.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It says well regulated militia in the second amendment. That's regulating arms.

The court LITERALLY shot that argument to pieces:

"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)."

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The 22,000 that showed up in Virginia needs to be amplified by 1000.

God Bless those who went. THEY are the Few, The Proud, the REAL Patriots.

But these types of protests will have to get to be 200,000 strong or more and occur much more frequently to make any difference.

If the rally in VA was a one time shot......it will accomplish nothing.

If only a tiny percentage of the population is motivated to fight for their rights, they will be lost for all. Pretty simple.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Define as in constitutionality. Laws aren't interpreted. The constitution is.

Stop crying.

You need to go back to law school, bud.



.

 

[White 6]

Liar.

So you're able to account for every private sale in the US?

ARe you on some sort of drugs?

Ate(sic) you unable or just unwilling to answer?

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

 

[Crixus]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

1. Define "universal background check". On this board I directly ask anyone who supports them to say what they are. They can't other then saying it "closes the guns how loophole" which is already closed. So if the goal is to ban parking lot sales, just say that and folks would likely support it.

2. They are all buzzword laws like the crime bill of the 90's. That banned cosmetic features and it was a failure. But it did make a preban AR15 go from $350.00 to around $950. That's about it.

 

[2aguy]

So you're able to account for every private sale in the US?

ARe you on some sort of drugs?

Ate(sic) you unable or just unwilling to answer?

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

 

[Dick Foster]

Actually we do, that's the whole part of being an active citizen in a constitutional republic.

LOL... Ok.

Typical SJW sheep.

baaaaaa...

You mean a good citizen who recognizes and respects how our system of government works.

No, a sheep who thinks we work for government instead of the other way around.

It's the job of SCOTUS to Define our laws according to the constitution. They have no obligation to take your tearful objections into consideration.

Where did you read define? Its interpret but that doesn't mean to alter, edit or change.
SCOTUS is subservient and inferior to the constitution, they have each raised their right hand and sworn an oath to that effect.
That's the trouble with simple minds, they're far too easily to brainwash because they can't function on their own.

 

[Crixus]

ARe you on some sort of drugs?

Ate(sic) you unable or just unwilling to answer?

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

And that universal backroad check being undefined. I bet they do that so it will be language in a bill that can be defined later. Very dangerous. Imagine if they tried to pass a bill that said all free speech was subject to universal review and left vague like that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Imagine if they tried to pass a bill that said all free speech was subject to universal review and left vague like that.

Yeah, that's next. They've got to get the guns first, so we can't remove the tyrants.

.

 

[White 6]

ARe you on some sort of drugs?

Ate(sic) you unable or just unwilling to answer?

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

Paranoia is a false flag excuse for not trying to do anything at all. I bought all of mine completely legal. The small dealer did not seem to have difficulty with complying with the law and still maintaining his standing and an honest law abiding citizen and business owner. I easily passed state and DHS standards for carry permit and maintain personal proficiency regularly on my own. You should also. If regulations of this type interfere with legitimate private owner sales and transfers, private owners should cease to be party to transfers or take the simple steps to comply.

 

[White 6]

Ate(sic) you unable or just unwilling to answer?

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

And that universal backroad check being undefined. I bet they do that so it will be language in a bill that can be defined later. Very dangerous. Imagine if they tried to pass a bill that said all free speech was subject to universal review and left vague like that.

You are grasping at straws. As a licensed owner and carrier, I reject your straw-man slippery slope argument.

 

[2aguy]

Ate(sic) you unable or just unwilling to answer?

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

Paranoia is a false flag excuse for not trying to do anything at all. I bought all of mine completely legal. The small dealer did not seem to have difficulty with complying with the law and still maintaining his standing and an honest law abiding citizen and business owner. I easily passed state and DHS standards for carry permit and maintain personal proficiency regularly on my own. You should also. If regulations of this type interfere with legitimate private owner sales and transfers, private owners should cease to be party to transfers or take the simple steps to comply.

Sorry.....guns are a Right and they are personal property. We already have laws that allow us to arrest people deliberately supplying guns to criminals. If you have to ask the state for permission to transfer a gun, it isn't a Right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You are grasping at straws. As a licensed owner and carrier, I reject your straw-man slippery slope argument.

You seriously don't see the EXTREME danger in leaving a "status" law undefined?

If we were to enact a law depriving a "hendenflugal" the right to vote, wouldn't you want to know what the **** a "hendenflugal" is before you support such a law?

Can you see how the politically motivated could provide an ex post facto definition of "hendenflugal" and **** you over?

.

 

[Crixus]

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

And that universal backroad check being undefined. I bet they do that so it will be language in a bill that can be defined later. Very dangerous. Imagine if they tried to pass a bill that said all free speech was subject to universal review and left vague like that.

You are grasping at straws. As a licensed owner and carrier, I reject your straw-man slippery slope argument.

Until it's you. You fall into the Fudd class with talk like that. You are licensed until the day you get a divorce in which you typically have a restraining order against you and you get caught with that licensed gun in your possession. Then you are just a fellon, yes, that's settled hash in SCOTUS, but does an avrage cop know that or care? Or a pissed off X or guy at work says you got a gun and you are talking crazy. Or your loacal PD grabs some crap you posted off line and red flag laws your gun. Sure you can go to court and fix it. If you got the $$$. It's not an issue for you because you haven't had an issue for now. These laws are about separating citizens from their guns period.

 

[2aguy]

It's an asinine question.

Look, I understand: you want guns limited to the rich, the well-connected, police, and criminals.

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

And that universal backroad check being undefined. I bet they do that so it will be language in a bill that can be defined later. Very dangerous. Imagine if they tried to pass a bill that said all free speech was subject to universal review and left vague like that.

You are grasping at straws. As a licensed owner and carrier, I reject your straw-man slippery slope argument.

Then you are a fool......

 

[2aguy]

It's not asinine. You would have to know about every private sale to call someone a liar the way you did.

Closing loopholes and requiring background checks only excludes those who could not pass a background check.

Well, that is something isn't it? Some who did not pass would fail to obtain. Those that went ahead and broke the law to obtain would be subject to prosecution as criminals, along with whoever broke the law to sell them. If fines were high penalties and fines were high enogh, it would have some effect. Criminals obtaining illegal weapons will never be stopped completely, unless you come up with a way to stop crime completely. I'm ok with that.

They don't care about stopping criminals......it is obvious in their gun control laws. Their laws target law abiding gun owners, not criminals. They increase the cost, the fines, the fees, the legal peril against normal gun owners......and do nothing to actually decrease gun crime.

Anti-gunners know that when they catch a criminal using a gun...they get that gun. What drives them absolutely insane is the millions of guns in the hands of normal gun owners. Since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with their guns, those guns are out of reach of the gun grabbers.

To get those guns....they increase the cost, fines, fees, and red tape.....and the legal penalties for legal gun owners who don't dot every "i" and cross every "t."

This is why they want universal background checks so badly. They know that criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....under current federally mandated background checks......which means the criminals will use straw buyers and theft to get around universal background checks.

What UBCs do? They will fail....then, when they fail, the democrats will come back and demand universal gun registration...this gives them 2 things....1) when they finally get the power to ban and confiscate guns, they will know who has them.....we know this from all the other countries with gun registration lists who then banned guns.....2) Universal Background checks allows them to attack normal gun owners directly....it increases the fees for transferring guns...especially gun collections when an owner dies...requiring a background check for each gun....and a fee for each gun. It also attacks gun education and self defense.....imagine in you have a wife, and she wants to borrow your pistol to go out late at night...if you give it to her without a background check, you are now both felons......

And that universal backroad check being undefined. I bet they do that so it will be language in a bill that can be defined later. Very dangerous. Imagine if they tried to pass a bill that said all free speech was subject to universal review and left vague like that.

You are grasping at straws. As a licensed owner and carrier, I reject your straw-man slippery slope argument.

Until it's you. You fall into the Fudd class with talk like that. You are licensed until the day you get a divorce in which you typically have a restraining order against you and you get caught with that licensed gun in your possession. Then you are just a fellon, yes, that's settled hash in SCOTUS, but does an avrage cop know that or care? Or a pissed off X or guy at work says you got a gun and you are talking crazy. Or your loacal PD grabs some crap you posted off line and red flag laws your gun. Sure you can go to court and fix it. If you got the $$$. It's not an issue for you because you haven't had an issue for now. These laws are about separating citizens from their guns period.

Next he will tell us that they will let him keep his shotgun and deer rifle after they ban AR-15s.....