Biden on Gun Control

[progressive hunter]

You're getting there. Regulation is not infringement. Now just concentrate a little longer, and you might understand.

I think we've been over this ground before. It all depends on what the "regulation" is, doesn't it. In the last few years we've seen all kinds of onerous proposals for regulations. All the way from trigger locks to excessive taxation to registration to outright confiscation. And the one common thread among all of them is that NONE of them are useful in preventing CRIMINALS from committing CRIMES with guns.

What about guns need to be regulated that already isn't?

If they're proposing new regulations, they need to demonstrate that they will be effective. For instance, would their proposed regulation have prevented any act of violence in the past? What's use of banning semi auto rifles, they they call "assault weapons", if most of the shooting is done by handguns? There is no use of course, so they're not really aiming to prevent crime, but to confiscate guns. All guns.

No matter how many times they try to write laws legislating morality, people still kill each other. They find new ways. If they ban semi auto rifles, criminals would use handguns. You ban handguns, they'll use knives. You ban knives, they'll turn to baseball clubs, or acid, or... take that fiend that murdered all the people in Las Vegas could have done a much better job with a truck. Get his speed up on HWY 91 there and plow into the back of the crowd all the way up to the stage. Then, because it’s a huge open space he could maneuver around running over others. You get the picture. To think that this person wouldn’t have killed so many others because he didn’t have a semi auto rifle is ludicrous.

Laws and regulations don't stop criminals. And, if you are worried about children dying take their cell phones away. You can actually ban them without conflict with individual rights protected by the Constitution.

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. It is unrelated to what i have been saying.

That is not what I am asking.

You're talking about regulations, and my question was why do you think regulations are needed.

If you want to move on to another subject, you have to admit that regulation is not the same as infringement, I have not advocated, and will not advocate banning any guns, and hat the phrase "will not be infringed" is meaningless when discussing many different aspects of regulation.

I'm not saying that phrase isn't a worthwhile precept, or that it is unimportant, only that it isn't pertinant to a discussion about constitutionally acceptable regulation.

Are you ready to admit those things yet?

my god youre an ignorant one,,,

regulations are the very definition of infringement,,,you need to buy a dictionary,,,

 

[Ame®icano]

So what regulation did you have in mind that would reduce gun crime or anything you perceive as a gun-related problem? Any? Can you even describe one?

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

Oh...it has a purpose......

They demand Universal Background Checks knowing they don't do anything. They pass UBCs and after a period of time with no change in crime and some mass public shootings, they then come back and demand universal gun registration....stating....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration.....

They need Universal Background Checks to position their demand for gun registration.

Correct.

NICS is universal background check.

As I said in previous post, Congress passed the NICS, then they don't fund it. Without funding it doesn't work, so they demand more regulation, like... wait for it... universal background check. Wait, what?

The same Democrats that passed "universal background check" which NICS is, and failed to fund it, demanding to pass "universal background check. Could it be more crazy than that?

During Barry's administration, Democrats controlled both sides of Congress, for two years they appropriated only 5% of the funds passed by the law. When Republicans took over, funding remained roughly the same. If you see a new report about a insane person legally buying a gun, now you know the Democrats are responsible that state info never got into the NCIS.

Here is another fun fact.

“In 2009 alone, the FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns. 2009. Out of 71,000 cases, Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%. There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators."

In 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress, and Barry as President, but less that 1% of those clear gun law violations even filed, with the rest ignored? That is actually standard every year since the gun control laws were even passed. Why laws are not enforced by the same Democrats (at least when they're in power) that are demanding those laws?

Because laws we have are not providing what they actually want. If gun control laws were funded, and enforced, and greatly reduced gun violence, there is no need to pressure for new gun control laws. Without that, they can't eventually get their total gun ban.

 

[Ame®icano]

Coming from someone that said that constitutional rights are meaningless, I am spot on what your intentions are.

You gotta show where I said that, or admit you are lying again.

I already did in post #556.

Here is again, your quote:

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

 

[Cosmos]

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

Oh...it has a purpose......

They demand Universal Background Checks knowing they don't do anything. They pass UBCs and after a period of time with no change in crime and some mass public shootings, they then come back and demand universal gun registration....stating....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration.....

They need Universal Background Checks to position their demand for gun registration.

Correct.

NICS is universal background check.

As I said in previous post, Congress passed the NICS, then they don't fund it. Without funding it doesn't work, so they demand more regulation, like... wait for it... universal background check. Wait, what?

The same Democrats that passed "universal background check" which NICS is, and failed to fund it, demanding to pass "universal background check. Could it be more crazy than that?

During Barry's administration, Democrats controlled both sides of Congress, for two years they appropriated only 5% of the funds passed by the law. When Republicans took over, funding remained roughly the same. If you see a new report about a insane person legally buying a gun, now you know the Democrats are responsible that state info never got into the NCIS.

Here is another fun fact.

“In 2009 alone, the FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns. 2009. Out of 71,000 cases, Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%. There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators."

In 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress, and Barry as President, but less that 1% of those clear gun law violations even filed, with the rest ignored? That is actually standard every year since the gun control laws were even passed. Why laws are not enforced by the same Democrats (at least when they're in power) that are demanding those laws?

Because laws we have are not providing what they actually want. If gun control laws were funded, and enforced, and greatly reduced gun violence, there is no need to pressure for new gun control laws. Without that, they can't eventually get their total gun ban.

We have to be careful about how far they can go with NICS. It could open a whole can of worms depending on what data it is allowed to collect.

 

[BULLDOG]

Coming from someone that said that constitutional rights are meaningless, I am spot on what your intentions are.

You gotta show where I said that, or admit you are lying again.

I already did in post #556.

Here is again, your quote:

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

In relation to gun regulation. What does that mean to you?

 

[Cosmos]

Universal background checks would be a good start.

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

Oh...it has a purpose......

They demand Universal Background Checks knowing they don't do anything. They pass UBCs and after a period of time with no change in crime and some mass public shootings, they then come back and demand universal gun registration....stating....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration.....

They need Universal Background Checks to position their demand for gun registration.

Correct.

NICS is universal background check.

As I said in previous post, Congress passed the NICS, then they don't fund it. Without funding it doesn't work, so they demand more regulation, like... wait for it... universal background check. Wait, what?

The same Democrats that passed "universal background check" which NICS is, and failed to fund it, demanding to pass "universal background check. Could it be more crazy than that?

During Barry's administration, Democrats controlled both sides of Congress, for two years they appropriated only 5% of the funds passed by the law. When Republicans took over, funding remained roughly the same. If you see a new report about a insane person legally buying a gun, now you know the Democrats are responsible that state info never got into the NCIS.

Here is another fun fact.

“In 2009 alone, the FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns. 2009. Out of 71,000 cases, Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%. There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators."

In 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress, and Barry as President, but less that 1% of those clear gun law violations even filed, with the rest ignored? That is actually standard every year since the gun control laws were even passed. Why laws are not enforced by the same Democrats (at least when they're in power) that are demanding those laws?

Because laws we have are not providing what they actually want. If gun control laws were funded, and enforced, and greatly reduced gun violence, there is no need to pressure for new gun control laws. Without that, they can't eventually get their total gun ban.

They also absurdly underfunded ACA just so they could get it to pass.....and then immediately moved on to demanding this Medicare for All nonsense. Same thing.

 

[2aguy]

We already have the NICS system. I've no problem with that, although we've seen that it is poorly maintained and flawed. How about we just fix what we have and make sure it's working correctly before we make new laws? And if we do make new laws, let's make sure they have a real purpose that will reduce gun crime. That's the objective, right?

And then, you said it was "a good start". See. Now that's a problem. Looks like you already know "universal background checks" won't do any good so we have to take further steps. So what would those further steps be?

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

Oh...it has a purpose......

They demand Universal Background Checks knowing they don't do anything. They pass UBCs and after a period of time with no change in crime and some mass public shootings, they then come back and demand universal gun registration....stating....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration.....

They need Universal Background Checks to position their demand for gun registration.

Correct.

NICS is universal background check.

As I said in previous post, Congress passed the NICS, then they don't fund it. Without funding it doesn't work, so they demand more regulation, like... wait for it... universal background check. Wait, what?

The same Democrats that passed "universal background check" which NICS is, and failed to fund it, demanding to pass "universal background check. Could it be more crazy than that?

During Barry's administration, Democrats controlled both sides of Congress, for two years they appropriated only 5% of the funds passed by the law. When Republicans took over, funding remained roughly the same. If you see a new report about a insane person legally buying a gun, now you know the Democrats are responsible that state info never got into the NCIS.

Here is another fun fact.

“In 2009 alone, the FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns. 2009. Out of 71,000 cases, Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%. There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators."

In 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress, and Barry as President, but less that 1% of those clear gun law violations even filed, with the rest ignored? That is actually standard every year since the gun control laws were even passed. Why laws are not enforced by the same Democrats (at least when they're in power) that are demanding those laws?

Because laws we have are not providing what they actually want. If gun control laws were funded, and enforced, and greatly reduced gun violence, there is no need to pressure for new gun control laws. Without that, they can't eventually get their total gun ban.

They also absurdly underfunded ACA just so they could get it to pass.....and then immediately moved on to demanding this Medicare for All nonsense. Same thing.

Notice.....more talking about the word regulation.....no discussion of actual regulation.....typical....bulldog understands that no matter what "regulation," he makes up, they can't explain the need, they can't explain how it will stop any criminals let alone some, and they can't justify the legal peril it puts law abiding gun into for simple, accidental, non-compliance crimes....like the nurse in New Jersey who had a legal gun, a legal carry permit...in Pennsylvania...but became a felon during a traffic stop when she told the NJ state trooper she had a legal gun with a legal permit on her person......

Didn't stop one criminal, but did threaten to put that nurse in jail for years and end her 2nd Amendment Rights....

 

[Ame®icano]

If you want to move on to another subject, you have to admit that regulation is not the same as infringement, I have not advocated, and will not advocate banning any guns, and hat the phrase "will not be infringed" is meaningless when discussing many different aspects of regulation.

I'm not saying that phrase isn't a worthwhile precept, or that it is unimportant, only that it isn't pertinant to a discussion about constitutionally acceptable regulation.

Are you ready to admit those things yet?

Are you listening to yourself? That empty feeling, in your skull, must've been terrible for you.

If you're talking about regulation, and I am asking about "why" regulation, we're talking about the same subject.

That phrase is not "will not be infringed", but "shall not be infringed", and it's about my constitutional right that government have no power over. You clearly said that is meaningless, because you don't care about rights.

 

[Ame®icano]

I think we've been over this ground before. It all depends on what the "regulation" is, doesn't it. In the last few years we've seen all kinds of onerous proposals for regulations. All the way from trigger locks to excessive taxation to registration to outright confiscation. And the one common thread among all of them is that NONE of them are useful in preventing CRIMINALS from committing CRIMES with guns.

What about guns need to be regulated that already isn't?

If they're proposing new regulations, they need to demonstrate that they will be effective. For instance, would their proposed regulation have prevented any act of violence in the past? What's use of banning semi auto rifles, they they call "assault weapons", if most of the shooting is done by handguns? There is no use of course, so they're not really aiming to prevent crime, but to confiscate guns. All guns.

No matter how many times they try to write laws legislating morality, people still kill each other. They find new ways. If they ban semi auto rifles, criminals would use handguns. You ban handguns, they'll use knives. You ban knives, they'll turn to baseball clubs, or acid, or... take that fiend that murdered all the people in Las Vegas could have done a much better job with a truck. Get his speed up on HWY 91 there and plow into the back of the crowd all the way up to the stage. Then, because it’s a huge open space he could maneuver around running over others. You get the picture. To think that this person wouldn’t have killed so many others because he didn’t have a semi auto rifle is ludicrous.

Laws and regulations don't stop criminals. And, if you are worried about children dying take their cell phones away. You can actually ban them without conflict with individual rights protected by the Constitution.

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. It is unrelated to what i have been saying.

That is not what I am asking.

You're talking about regulations, and my question was why do you think regulations are needed.

If you want to move on to another subject, you have to admit that regulation is not the same as infringement, I have not advocated, and will not advocate banning any guns, and hat the phrase "will not be infringed" is meaningless when discussing many different aspects of regulation.

I'm not saying that phrase isn't a worthwhile precept, or that it is unimportant, only that it isn't pertinant to a discussion about constitutionally acceptable regulation.

Are you ready to admit those things yet?

my god youre an ignorant one,,,

regulations are the very definition of infringement,,,you need to buy a dictionary,,,

She's not ignorant...

Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.

 

[Cosmos]

So.....at this point...

Universal Background Checks.....

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....so it has no effect on crime.

Creates more red tape and legal peril for normal gun owners through accidental non-compliance, more time, more cost......

Ineffective, feel-good, leftist regulations that have no purpose. And it only perpetuates the calls for even further encroachment on our rights.

Oh...it has a purpose......

They demand Universal Background Checks knowing they don't do anything. They pass UBCs and after a period of time with no change in crime and some mass public shootings, they then come back and demand universal gun registration....stating....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration.....

They need Universal Background Checks to position their demand for gun registration.

Correct.

NICS is universal background check.

As I said in previous post, Congress passed the NICS, then they don't fund it. Without funding it doesn't work, so they demand more regulation, like... wait for it... universal background check. Wait, what?

The same Democrats that passed "universal background check" which NICS is, and failed to fund it, demanding to pass "universal background check. Could it be more crazy than that?

During Barry's administration, Democrats controlled both sides of Congress, for two years they appropriated only 5% of the funds passed by the law. When Republicans took over, funding remained roughly the same. If you see a new report about a insane person legally buying a gun, now you know the Democrats are responsible that state info never got into the NCIS.

Here is another fun fact.

“In 2009 alone, the FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns. 2009. Out of 71,000 cases, Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%. There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators."

In 2009, with Democrats in charge of Congress, and Barry as President, but less that 1% of those clear gun law violations even filed, with the rest ignored? That is actually standard every year since the gun control laws were even passed. Why laws are not enforced by the same Democrats (at least when they're in power) that are demanding those laws?

Because laws we have are not providing what they actually want. If gun control laws were funded, and enforced, and greatly reduced gun violence, there is no need to pressure for new gun control laws. Without that, they can't eventually get their total gun ban.

They also absurdly underfunded ACA just so they could get it to pass.....and then immediately moved on to demanding this Medicare for All nonsense. Same thing.

Notice.....more talking about the word regulation.....no discussion of actual regulation.....typical....bulldog understands that no matter what "regulation," he makes up, they can't explain the need, they can't explain how it will stop any criminals let alone some, and they can't justify the legal peril it puts law abiding gun into for simple, accidental, non-compliance crimes....like the nurse in New Jersey who had a legal gun, a legal carry permit...in Pennsylvania...but became a felon during a traffic stop when she told the NJ state trooper she had a legal gun with a legal permit on her person......

Didn't stop one criminal, but did threaten to put that nurse in jail for years and end her 2nd Amendment Rights....

How their idiotic proposals hurt real people doesn't seem to be much of a concern for them. It's the ideology that's important.

 

[Ame®icano]

Coming from someone that said that constitutional rights are meaningless, I am spot on what your intentions are.

You gotta show where I said that, or admit you are lying again.

I already did in post #556.

Here is again, your quote:

Are you finally ready to admit that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is just a meaningless remark in relation to gun regulation, and is certainly nothing to prevent common sense gun control?

In relation to gun regulation. What does that mean to you?

Just as it says. Federal government have no power over my constitutional rights, nor they can regulate them.

 

[Shawnee_b]

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. .

Of course you will!!!! "oh we don't want your guns"

 

[Shawnee_b]

Universal background checks would be a good start.

Had them since 93. Hows it working for you in Chiraq, Baltimore, NYC

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998. The NICS is used by FFLs to check the eligibility of those who wish to purchase firearms.

 

[BULLDOG]

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. .

Of course you will!!!! "oh we don't want your guns"

I have no desire to ban anyone's guns, but I will discuss the subject if that's what you want. I suspect we are equally against banning guns.

 

[BULLDOG]

Universal background checks would be a good start.

Had them since 93. Hows it working for you in Chiraq, Baltimore, NYC

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998. The NICS is used by FFLs to check the eligibility of those who wish to purchase firearms.

No you haven't. Background checks are only done for licensed dealers.

 

[Shawnee_b]

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. .

Of course you will!!!! "oh we don't want your guns"

I have no desire to ban anyone's guns, but I will discuss the subject if that's what you want. I suspect we are equally against banning guns.

Ok, lets discuss. Thread has a positive movement may as well add that in! My how gun threads move on here.

Yes I am against banning them.

Been pretty much pissed off on any gun laws since 1934. I'm old enough I remember mail order firearms and there were really no mass murders.

How many driveways and lawns I mowed to pay for 22 ammo.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Universal background checks would be a good start.

Had them since 93. Hows it working for you in Chiraq, Baltimore, NYC

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998. The NICS is used by FFLs to check the eligibility of those who wish to purchase firearms.

No you haven't. Background checks are only done for licensed dealers.

I retired as a licensed dealer, manufacturer. Had 01, 03, 07 manufactures, clsss 2 sot (NFA)

It really does go deeper than most realize.

If one DOES sell a gun private, better know everything about the buyer. Pot user, felon, BCD anything. BATFe finds out or he commits a crime, you're down for the count. Big time. Who knows that? I do

All my guns, 45 of them are on BATFe records.

Once I retired years ago, never sold another firearm.

Are private sales a problem? They can be. But then again libs are going so far as you can't even loan a deer rifle to a relative gonna be 50 feet from you in the woods hunting.

 

[BULLDOG]

I will discuss banning guns some other time. I don't care to discuss that now. .

Of course you will!!!! "oh we don't want your guns"

I have no desire to ban anyone's guns, but I will discuss the subject if that's what you want. I suspect we are equally against banning guns.

Ok, lets discuss. Thread has a positive movement may as well add that in! My how gun threads move on here.

Yes I am against banning them.

Been pretty much pissed off on any gun laws since 1934. I'm old enough I remember mail order firearms and there were really no mass murders.

How many driveways and lawns I mowed to pay for 22 ammo.

My first gun was a BB gun I got for selling Grit Magazine door to door. My first real gun was a 410 I got for Christmas when I was 12 years old. Squirrels feared me. I'm generally against banning guns. What part of that do you want to discuss?

 

[BULLDOG]

Universal background checks would be a good start.

Had them since 93. Hows it working for you in Chiraq, Baltimore, NYC

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, and was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998. The NICS is used by FFLs to check the eligibility of those who wish to purchase firearms.

No you haven't. Background checks are only done for licensed dealers.

I retired as a licensed dealer, manufacturer. Had 01, 03, 07 manufactures, clsss 2 sot (NFA)

It really does go deeper than most realize.

If one DOES sell a gun private, better know everything about the buyer. Pot user, felon, BCD anything. BATFe finds out or he commits a crime, you're down for the count. Big time. Who knows that? I do

All my guns, 45 of them are on BATFe records.

Once I retired years ago, never sold another firearm.

Are private sales a problem? They can be. But then again libs are going so far as you can't even loan a deer rifle to a relative gonna be 50 feet from you in the woods hunting.

No. An unlicensed seller has no obligation to even know the name of the buyer. If it can be shown that the seller knowingly sells to someone not allowed to have a gun, there are repercussions, but that is hard to do. It's pretty easy to say "I didn't know" and there is no obligation to find out. I agree you should be able to loan a gun to someone you know, but there should be an obligation to actually know whether that person is allowed to have a gun.

 

[Shawnee_b]

My first gun was a BB gun I got for selling Grit Magazine door to door. My first real gun was a 410 I got for Christmas when I was 12 years old. Squirrels feared me. I'm generally against banning guns. What part of that do you want to discuss?

Oh damn I ate many of them tree rats myself! Lots of them here. Killed my first squirrel at 3-4, uncles held the gun, got lucky. BY 8-9 I was a woodchuck/groundhog eliminater and farmers loved me, 22, 222, even a 308 winnie. Shot 81 one year,,,, years before having a driver license But drove anyway) Cheif police pulled me and unc over once, I was about 13, back farm roads. "Isn't he a little young"? Unc says "he got to learn sometime" Then Chief pulls a 22 revolver and has me shoot the street sign (hit it 6 times too). My how times have changed.

About banning? WHY!!! Mostly based on looks? Fienstien defined "assualt gun" Ban sunsetted in 10 years. Senate subcomitte said "the ban was useless. Crime with so called "assualt guns" actually went up in those 10 years, like 2.6 to 2.8 %

That's a ban. They have a similar bans in the works constantly. Why if it is worthless? Look at VA, dunces.

It's about people control, not gunz control the retards.

Use the laws we already have. For instance very few report to NICS/FBI as required. Which is why people can go to a gunstore and buy, like the EX AF guy mass shooter (tx I think) He was a BCD, can't buy one but AF never reported him? Why not? One fed agency to another, take 2 minutes. People go into nutward lockups released and never reported? That's problems, bans won't solve.