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

[White 6]

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.

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

You want to make me liable for the illegal actions of a third party?

How far do we go with that? If I sell a car to a person who likes to drink and drive, now I am responsible when said drunk kills someone with the car I sold him?

.

 

[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......

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.

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

Sorry....any fee for the exercise of a Right is a violation of the Constitution.....

If my neighbor left his gun out we have laws that deal with that......the Constitution doesn't protect negligence.....

The criminal already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun, and we can already arrest them.....

So...according to your theory, all computer and electronic device sales need to have background checks before they are completed.....right? Before you are allowed to by an Ipad, computer, laptop, or any other tablet......you must have a criminal background check, since computer criminals are often sentenced such that they can't use computer anymore. Dittos making sure you aren't selling a computer to a child molester, a terrorist or a convicted identity thief...right?

You are morally responsible for every tap on a key board that leaves your control....so from this point forward, Best Buy, Amazon will conduct background checks on all sales...right?

 

[rightwinger]

You still get the gun, dope.

I'm still being infringed.

No.
You're butthurt over the process.

I am angry because my RKBA is being infringed. The whole purpose of NYC's process isn't safety but to discourage people from applying by making it too expensive and too time consuming.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with Virginia or what Virginians want, but thanks for playing.

It has to do with what Gun control advocates, including Virginian ones, want leading to eventual bans on the private ownership of firearms.

It's one big fight, despite your pathetic attempt to divide and conquer.

Nobody is looking to ban guns

We are looking at closing paths criminals use to obtain guns

 

[rightwinger]

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

You want to make me liable for the illegal actions of a third party?

How far do we go with that? If I sell a car to a person who likes to drink and drive, now I am responsible when said drunk kills someone with the car I sold him?

.

If you applied due diligence to do s background check then you are not liable

But if you ignored a check and a criminal uses your gun. Then I hope you go to jail

 

[BS Filter]

I'm still being infringed.

No.
You're butthurt over the process.

I am angry because my RKBA is being infringed. The whole purpose of NYC's process isn't safety but to discourage people from applying by making it too expensive and too time consuming.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with Virginia or what Virginians want, but thanks for playing.

It has to do with what Gun control advocates, including Virginian ones, want leading to eventual bans on the private ownership of firearms.

It's one big fight, despite your pathetic attempt to divide and conquer.

Nobody is looking to ban guns

We are looking at closing paths criminals use to obtain guns

Passing more laws will not stop criminals from getting a gun. Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they're called criminals.

 

[2aguy]

I'm still being infringed.

No.
You're butthurt over the process.

I am angry because my RKBA is being infringed. The whole purpose of NYC's process isn't safety but to discourage people from applying by making it too expensive and too time consuming.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with Virginia or what Virginians want, but thanks for playing.

It has to do with what Gun control advocates, including Virginian ones, want leading to eventual bans on the private ownership of firearms.

It's one big fight, despite your pathetic attempt to divide and conquer.

Nobody is looking to ban guns

We are looking at closing paths criminals use to obtain guns

Except for the people at the CNN townhall, the leadership of the democrat party, the 4 democrat justices on the Supreme Court, the democrat party judges in the circuit courts....the democrat party leaders at the local and state level.........and hollywood, and in education...

other than those guys you are right....

 

[martybegan]

I'm still being infringed.

No.
You're butthurt over the process.

I am angry because my RKBA is being infringed. The whole purpose of NYC's process isn't safety but to discourage people from applying by making it too expensive and too time consuming.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with Virginia or what Virginians want, but thanks for playing.

It has to do with what Gun control advocates, including Virginian ones, want leading to eventual bans on the private ownership of firearms.

It's one big fight, despite your pathetic attempt to divide and conquer.

Nobody is looking to ban guns

We are looking at closing paths criminals use to obtain guns

Bullshit. Why should we trust you?

Why does it take me 3-6 months and $500 in fees just to keep a handgun in my apartment?

 

[White 6]

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.

Boo hoo hoo. I have been married for over 45 years to same woman and will go to my grave that way, unless she passes first. You should have chosen better. Weapons carry implicit and explicit responsibility in society. Lots of people who chose their partner better have divorced without any restraining order. I support your right to keep and bear arms, not become an irresponsible transfer point for arms to those that may not be trusted. If you foolishly marry poorly and are worried about you guns, you may vary well be cuckold to that woman, unless you deal with the situation in a manner that will not endanger your wish to keep control of your firearms. Make better choices next time.

 

[Dick Foster]

I'm still being infringed.

No.
You're butthurt over the process.

I am angry because my RKBA is being infringed. The whole purpose of NYC's process isn't safety but to discourage people from applying by making it too expensive and too time consuming.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with Virginia or what Virginians want, but thanks for playing.

It has to do with what Gun control advocates, including Virginian ones, want leading to eventual bans on the private ownership of firearms.

It's one big fight, despite your pathetic attempt to divide and conquer.

Nobody is looking to ban guns

We are looking at closing paths criminals use to obtain guns

BULLSHIT! We not as stupid as you may like to think we are. That is to say we aren't as stupid as your bunch mainly unlike because unlike yourselves, we have the ability to think for ourselves.

 

[White 6]

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......

Opinions very. Yours does not matter to me.

 

[White 6]

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.....

They will not ban AR-15s in Tennessee, much less my rifles, shotguns, handguns, bow, or hunt/survival knives here. Suggest you move.

 

[BlindBoo]

?

Pick wisely

Pick what?
I have no idea of WTF that means. Hence the question mark.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


wake up before it’s to late

" Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Your saying trump wants absolute power? Lol

I quoted the next sentences from the Declaration of Independence.

 

[White 6]

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

You want to make me liable for the illegal actions of a third party?

How far do we go with that? If I sell a car to a person who likes to drink and drive, now I am responsible when said drunk kills someone with the car I sold him?

.

If he is a known drunk driver, losing his right to drive a car, yes.

 

[2aguy]

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.....

They will not ban AR-15s in Tennessee, much less my rifles, shotguns, handguns, bow, or hunt/survival knives here. Suggest you move.

Yes......Blacks suffering from democrat party jim crow laws should have just moved....

 

[sealybobo]

The people of NYC have spoken
NY is safer for it

It’s safer to not have protection? Do you know your IQ?

You can still get protection.

and he aint talking about condoms jitss........

So I get the same protection has NYC mayor?

but i thought you could kick bruce lees ass.....

You have a reading comprehension problem. Would kiss bruce lees ass sound similar.

 

[White 6]

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.

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

Sorry....any fee for the exercise of a Right is a violation of the Constitution.....

If my neighbor left his gun out we have laws that deal with that......the Constitution doesn't protect negligence.....

The criminal already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun, and we can already arrest them.....

So...according to your theory, all computer and electronic device sales need to have background checks before they are completed.....right? Before you are allowed to by an Ipad, computer, laptop, or any other tablet......you must have a criminal background check, since computer criminals are often sentenced such that they can't use computer anymore. Dittos making sure you aren't selling a computer to a child molester, a terrorist or a convicted identity thief...right?

You are morally responsible for every tap on a key board that leaves your control....so from this point forward, Best Buy, Amazon will conduct background checks on all sales...right?

Computer sales? What a straw man. That won't even stand up with props, much less scare the crows you fear.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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

States rights. Don’t move to New York City. You won’t like the gun laws there. And it’s all very constitutional

No gun laws are constitutional. You are a liar.

What a right wing nut job thinks is unconstitutional is not what a moderate republican thinks.

The problem is Trump is appointing extremists to the courts and they see things more your way.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

Sorry....any fee for the exercise of a Right is a violation of the Constitution.....

If my neighbor left his gun out we have laws that deal with that......the Constitution doesn't protect negligence.....

The criminal already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun, and we can already arrest them.....

So...according to your theory, all computer and electronic device sales need to have background checks before they are completed.....right? Before you are allowed to by an Ipad, computer, laptop, or any other tablet......you must have a criminal background check, since computer criminals are often sentenced such that they can't use computer anymore. Dittos making sure you aren't selling a computer to a child molester, a terrorist or a convicted identity thief...right?

You are morally responsible for every tap on a key board that leaves your control....so from this point forward, Best Buy, Amazon will conduct background checks on all sales...right?

Computer sales? What a straw man. That won't even stand up with props, much less scare the crows you fear.

No, exactly the same thing.......sex trafficking, identity theft, terrorism, murder.....all are aided and abetted by easy access to computers.......so according to you, a background check to purchase a computer is no big thing....

 

[SavannahMann]

That is not what our Constitution says. If you were American you would know our Constitution is more specific about infringement of specific rights and rights themselves. Many Americans don't really fully understand their rights, so Russian trolls certainly should not be expected to understand them..

Huh

Our 2nd Amendment is very specific. It says we have a right to "keep and bear arms". It also mentions ", a well-regulared militia ", hence, the government has authority for implementing rules.

I would also include the Commerce Clause in the constitution.

It's one simple sentence and there are no exceptions for weapons.

The government has the right to regulate commerce. Buying and selling a weapon is commerce.

No, the Federal government can regulate INTERSTATE commerce.

These laws are executed at the state level

Can the State pass a law limiting your right to an attorney? Can Georgia say that regarding arrests, you are not entitled to an attorney until your trial date is set? Can Texas pass a law saying that the police need no warrant to search a house under any circumstances? Wouldn’t those laws be passed by the State too?