Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts

[koshergrl]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I see you don't have a point.

Well,I guess none that would pierce your teabagger brain.

No, you don't have a point, period. Your commentary is senseless and irrelevant to the topic. As usual.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

I see you don't have a point.

Well,I guess none that would pierce your teabagger brain.

No, you don't have a point, period. Your commentary is senseless and irrelevant to the topic. As usual.

Thanks for your input. I'll give your thoughts the same consideration they always receive.

 

[Iceweasel]

If most Americans carried a gun it would soon boil down to the fastest draw. We could then have fast-draw and shoot contests. This could open new business opportunities, fast draw schools, fast draw holsters, new jackets that exposing the fast draw holster and so on. But the big change would be the two gun carrier, two holsters, two guns and able to shoot either equally well. For many it would be a childhood dream come true.

Lots of ccw holders out there. Which cartoon show has this happening?

 

[Iceweasel]

Perhaps the real reason my futurama has not come to pass is that most Americans do not want to carry guns. If true, that brings up the question why do so many Americans not want to carry a gun, and of course the next question why would the few Americans that do carry guns, and not in more danger than most, want to carry a gun?

What do your inane questions mean to you? Because I'm not getting it.

 

[2aguy]

Were these crimes felonies? Have they been convicted?

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

I answered this.
You refused to comment.

No need to comment. Except is there any behavior that would give you guys a moment's pause?

My original response lists the conditions specified by the law.
You do understand that no one can be denied a gun unless the law says so, right?

Thanks to well constructed loopholes the law is meaningless (in other words just how you want it) which is why I asked for opinions

No loopholes…..criminals steal their guns or get people who can pass criminal background checks to buy the gun for them. Not a loophole, just criminals making fools out of gun grabbers.

 

[2aguy]

Cop there....does nothing...white guy....

Oh….so you want assault vehicles banned….now I understand the point of your thread……..

 

[2aguy]

I know that sounds really profound at a tea person meeting, or a KKK rally, but it really isn't. Do you advocate removing every law that isn't 100% effective?

1. You didn't answer any of my questions.

2. No, but I do not advocating the trampling of more of our Constitutional Rights to impose something that will never, ever be effective or solve the problem. When you create laws the only ones who obey them are the people you never have to worry about to begin with...the people who will never break them (which is why Congress exempts itself from the laws they pass).

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

Apples and oranges.

We have laws against rape. That means if you legitimately rape a woman, you are held on charges, brought to court and it's determined whether you're guilty or not. If you are guilty, you go to jail. We have rape laws to help prevent rapes.

Gun laws are much different in that people find alternative methods to obtain a firearm that are not legal. The more laws you make, the more alternative ways criminals will get their hands on guns. There are no alternative ways to rape, murder or steal from somebody. You either brake the law or you don't.

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

No…that is what you guys keep saying…we say that we have a law that defines what is appropriate behavior and what is not, so you can punish the people who break the law, after they actually break it……..you guys are the ones who want laws that first predict the behavior before it happens and punishes it before the individual commits the behavior…..not us.

 

[2aguy]

He did not verify the identity of the buyer.

Name the law that requires proof that he did. Sorry, but I need a verified law. You saying it just is isn't enough.

Below is the Federal requirement for buyer and seller to be residents of the same state. I don't feel like wading through all of the BS to find the exact Statute but here's the website. Feel free.



What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction?
When a transaction takes place between unlicensed persons who reside in the same State, the GCA does not require any record keeping. An unlicensed person may sell a firearm to another unlicensed person in his or her State of residence and, similarly, an unlicensed person may buy a firearm from another unlicensed person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same–State” residents.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information regarding any such requirements.




What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

You want me to try to prove your claim? You are nuts, aren't you?

No, I'm sick with a chest cold so don't feel like wading through mountains of virtual paperwork. The Federal Law is buyer and seller must be residents of the same state. Do you really think that the ATF doesn't have a law that mandates ID verification with the requirement already specified? Further do you think they aren't itching to incarcerate people who violate that law? I mean c'mon. Use your head.

And, for the record, I and every gun person I know, is fully in favor of a free, instant background check that has no gun registration requirement. We would love to have a 1-800 number that ANYONE could call at any time and do an instant background check on the buyer of a weapon.

Sorry you feel bad. I had a dose of that a few weeks back. Doesn't remove your obligation to back up your claims though. If so many are in favor of that (90% of the country is), why are Republican politicians so vehemently opposed to universal background checks?

Besides requiring registration of all guns, background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns…and then there is this….

How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense

However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25).

In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.

Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.
--------------
Safety training

Sensible firearms policy should encourage, not impede, safety instruction. The Bloomberg laws do just the opposite. They do so by making ordinary safety training impossible unless it takes place at a corporate target range. (The federal S. 374 allows transfers “at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms.”)

A target range is usually necessary for the component of some safety courses that includes “live fire” — in which students fire guns at a range under the supervision of an instructor. However, even the courses that have live fire also have an extensive classroom component. Some introductory courses are classroom-only. In the classroom, dozens of firearms transfers will take place. Many students may not yet own a firearm; even if a student does own a firearm, many instructors choose to allow only their own personal firearms in the classroom, as the instructor may want to teach particular facts about particular types of firearms. The instructor also wants to use firearms that he or she is certain are in good working order. In any classroom setting, functional ammunition is absolutely forbidden.
****************
The next article in the series...private sharing on private property, with a link to long term storage article...

Sharing firearms for informal target shooting: Another legitimate activity outlawed by Everytown’s ‘universal background checks’

Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.
*************
How background checks affect long term storage when owner is away and wants to leave guns with friends...
Safe storage of firearms: The harms from Bloomberg’s strange background check system


Although the Bloomberg system is promoted as addressing private sales of firearms, the Bloomberg laws as written apply to all firearms loans — whether for a few seconds or a few weeks. There are some limited exceptions (e.g., certain family members, or at a corporate target range). But these exceptions do not apply to safe storage situations.

Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period, such as a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a family going on a long vacation, or someone evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted friend or neighbor for months or years. Under the Bloomberg system, for the friend or neighbor to store the firearms, the following procedures must be followed:

The owner and the bailee must find a gun store that is willing to process the loan. The store must treat the loan as if it were selling a firearm out of its inventory. Under the threat of a five-year federal prison sentence for perjury, the bailee and gun store must answer the dozens of questions on ATF Form 4473. Next, the gun store contacts the FBI or a state counterpart for permission to proceed with the sale. Under ideal circumstances, permission to proceed is granted in less than 10 minutes. The retailer then logs the gun into his Acquisition and Disposition record book, as an acquisition. He next logs the gun out of the record book, as a disposition. He hands the firearm to the bailee. The process must be followed for every firearm. If there are two are more handguns, the store must send additional forms to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Depending on the state, a fee is charged for each background check requested. The gun store, of course, will process this transaction only if it can charge a fee to compensate it for handling the paperwork. Unlike with an inventory sale, the gun store is not making any profit on the gun itself.

Later, when the bailor returns and is ready to take custody of her firearms, the entire process must be repeated, with bailor and bailee both taking all the guns to the gun store, before they may be returned to the bailor.

 

[2aguy]

1. You didn't answer any of my questions.

2. No, but I do not advocating the trampling of more of our Constitutional Rights to impose something that will never, ever be effective or solve the problem. When you create laws the only ones who obey them are the people you never have to worry about to begin with...the people who will never break them (which is why Congress exempts itself from the laws they pass).

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

Apples and oranges.

We have laws against rape. That means if you legitimately rape a woman, you are held on charges, brought to court and it's determined whether you're guilty or not. If you are guilty, you go to jail. We have rape laws to help prevent rapes.

Gun laws are much different in that people find alternative methods to obtain a firearm that are not legal. The more laws you make, the more alternative ways criminals will get their hands on guns. There are no alternative ways to rape, murder or steal from somebody. You either brake the law or you don't.

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

Well... historical fact pretty much proves that point. Laws don't prevent crime from occurring, they just provide society with a template for punishment when and if the perps are caught.

So why is it not a problem to have laws that WILL NOT stop all rapists but will help reduce the amounts of rape, but it is a problem to have laws that will not stop all thugs from getting guns, but will help reduce the amount of thugs with guns?

They don't stop rape. It doesn't reduce thugs getting guns….it does create a felony trap for a law abiding gun owner though.

 

[2aguy]

If the seller wasn't a licensed dealer. Which law or laws were broken?

He did not verify the identity of the buyer.

Name the law that requires proof that he did. Sorry, but I need a verified law. You saying it just is isn't enough.

Below is the Federal requirement for buyer and seller to be residents of the same state. I don't feel like wading through all of the BS to find the exact Statute but here's the website. Feel free.



What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction?
When a transaction takes place between unlicensed persons who reside in the same State, the GCA does not require any record keeping. An unlicensed person may sell a firearm to another unlicensed person in his or her State of residence and, similarly, an unlicensed person may buy a firearm from another unlicensed person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same–State” residents.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information regarding any such requirements.




What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

You want me to try to prove your claim? You are nuts, aren't you?

No, I'm sick with a chest cold so don't feel like wading through mountains of virtual paperwork. The Federal Law is buyer and seller must be residents of the same state. Do you really think that the ATF doesn't have a law that mandates ID verification with the requirement already specified? Further do you think they aren't itching to incarcerate people who violate that law? I mean c'mon. Use your head.

And, for the record, I and every gun person I know, is fully in favor of a free, instant background check that has no gun registration requirement. We would love to have a 1-800 number that ANYONE could call at any time and do an instant background check on the buyer of a weapon.

Allow me to repeat this……the lefties here are difficult to reach sometimes………repeating a simple point is often necessary and they will still not get the point…

And, for the record, I and every gun person I know, is fully in favor of a free, instant background check that has no gun registration requirement. We would love to have a 1-800 number that ANYONE could call at any time and do an instant background check on the buyer of a weapon

I agree………who else who supports gun rights agrees?

 

[regent]

I know that sounds really profound at a tea person meeting, or a KKK rally, but it really isn't. Do you advocate removing every law that isn't 100% effective?

1. You didn't answer any of my questions.

2. No, but I do not advocating the trampling of more of our Constitutional Rights to impose something that will never, ever be effective or solve the problem. When you create laws the only ones who obey them are the people you never have to worry about to begin with...the people who will never break them (which is why Congress exempts itself from the laws they pass).

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

Apples and oranges.

We have laws against rape. That means if you legitimately rape a woman, you are held on charges, brought to court and it's determined whether you're guilty or not. If you are guilty, you go to jail. We have rape laws to help prevent rapes.

Gun laws are much different in that people find alternative methods to obtain a firearm that are not legal. The more laws you make, the more alternative ways criminals will get their hands on guns. There are no alternative ways to rape, murder or steal from somebody. You either brake the law or you don't.

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

No…that is what you guys keep saying…we say that we have a law that defines what is appropriate behavior and what is not, so you can punish the people who break the law, after they actually break it……..you guys are the ones who want laws that first predict the behavior before it happens and punishes it before the individual commits the behavior…..not us.

When a law is written, often the laws are also written for those that break the law.

 

[BULLDOG]

I know that sounds really profound at a tea person meeting, or a KKK rally, but it really isn't. Do you advocate removing every law that isn't 100% effective?

1. You didn't answer any of my questions.

2. No, but I do not advocating the trampling of more of our Constitutional Rights to impose something that will never, ever be effective or solve the problem. When you create laws the only ones who obey them are the people you never have to worry about to begin with...the people who will never break them (which is why Congress exempts itself from the laws they pass).

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

Apples and oranges.

We have laws against rape. That means if you legitimately rape a woman, you are held on charges, brought to court and it's determined whether you're guilty or not. If you are guilty, you go to jail. We have rape laws to help prevent rapes.

Gun laws are much different in that people find alternative methods to obtain a firearm that are not legal. The more laws you make, the more alternative ways criminals will get their hands on guns. There are no alternative ways to rape, murder or steal from somebody. You either brake the law or you don't.

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

No…that is what you guys keep saying…we say that we have a law that defines what is appropriate behavior and what is not, so you can punish the people who break the law, after they actually break it……..you guys are the ones who want laws that first predict the behavior before it happens and punishes it before the individual commits the behavior…..not us.

You still haven't explained how the requirement to check ID before alcohol or tobacco sales isn't the same thing, or why you aren't just as opposed to those checks..

 

[BULLDOG]

Name the law that requires proof that he did. Sorry, but I need a verified law. You saying it just is isn't enough.

Below is the Federal requirement for buyer and seller to be residents of the same state. I don't feel like wading through all of the BS to find the exact Statute but here's the website. Feel free.



What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction?
When a transaction takes place between unlicensed persons who reside in the same State, the GCA does not require any record keeping. An unlicensed person may sell a firearm to another unlicensed person in his or her State of residence and, similarly, an unlicensed person may buy a firearm from another unlicensed person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same–State” residents.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information regarding any such requirements.




What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

You want me to try to prove your claim? You are nuts, aren't you?

No, I'm sick with a chest cold so don't feel like wading through mountains of virtual paperwork. The Federal Law is buyer and seller must be residents of the same state. Do you really think that the ATF doesn't have a law that mandates ID verification with the requirement already specified? Further do you think they aren't itching to incarcerate people who violate that law? I mean c'mon. Use your head.

And, for the record, I and every gun person I know, is fully in favor of a free, instant background check that has no gun registration requirement. We would love to have a 1-800 number that ANYONE could call at any time and do an instant background check on the buyer of a weapon.

Sorry you feel bad. I had a dose of that a few weeks back. Doesn't remove your obligation to back up your claims though. If so many are in favor of that (90% of the country is), why are Republican politicians so vehemently opposed to universal background checks?

Besides requiring registration of all guns, background checks do not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns…and then there is this….

How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense

However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25).

In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.

Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.
--------------
Safety training

Sensible firearms policy should encourage, not impede, safety instruction. The Bloomberg laws do just the opposite. They do so by making ordinary safety training impossible unless it takes place at a corporate target range. (The federal S. 374 allows transfers “at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms.”)

A target range is usually necessary for the component of some safety courses that includes “live fire” — in which students fire guns at a range under the supervision of an instructor. However, even the courses that have live fire also have an extensive classroom component. Some introductory courses are classroom-only. In the classroom, dozens of firearms transfers will take place. Many students may not yet own a firearm; even if a student does own a firearm, many instructors choose to allow only their own personal firearms in the classroom, as the instructor may want to teach particular facts about particular types of firearms. The instructor also wants to use firearms that he or she is certain are in good working order. In any classroom setting, functional ammunition is absolutely forbidden.
****************
The next article in the series...private sharing on private property, with a link to long term storage article...

Sharing firearms for informal target shooting: Another legitimate activity outlawed by Everytown’s ‘universal background checks’

Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.
*************
How background checks affect long term storage when owner is away and wants to leave guns with friends...
Safe storage of firearms: The harms from Bloomberg’s strange background check system


Although the Bloomberg system is promoted as addressing private sales of firearms, the Bloomberg laws as written apply to all firearms loans — whether for a few seconds or a few weeks. There are some limited exceptions (e.g., certain family members, or at a corporate target range). But these exceptions do not apply to safe storage situations.

Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period, such as a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a family going on a long vacation, or someone evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted friend or neighbor for months or years. Under the Bloomberg system, for the friend or neighbor to store the firearms, the following procedures must be followed:

The owner and the bailee must find a gun store that is willing to process the loan. The store must treat the loan as if it were selling a firearm out of its inventory. Under the threat of a five-year federal prison sentence for perjury, the bailee and gun store must answer the dozens of questions on ATF Form 4473. Next, the gun store contacts the FBI or a state counterpart for permission to proceed with the sale. Under ideal circumstances, permission to proceed is granted in less than 10 minutes. The retailer then logs the gun into his Acquisition and Disposition record book, as an acquisition. He next logs the gun out of the record book, as a disposition. He hands the firearm to the bailee. The process must be followed for every firearm. If there are two are more handguns, the store must send additional forms to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Depending on the state, a fee is charged for each background check requested. The gun store, of course, will process this transaction only if it can charge a fee to compensate it for handling the paperwork. Unlike with an inventory sale, the gun store is not making any profit on the gun itself.

Later, when the bailor returns and is ready to take custody of her firearms, the entire process must be repeated, with bailor and bailee both taking all the guns to the gun store, before they may be returned to the bailor.

background checks and registration are not the same thing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What in the world does an incident regarding a basketball coach, two players and a sucker punch to a referee have to do with gun rights? Is it alleged that every Texan has anger issues? How about that ACLU lawyer (in Colorado, not Texas) who tweeted that all Trump supporters should be shot?

Who seriously alleges that. We have undeniable demonstrated anger issues on these two men;

Do you want them carpooling your kid to school when someone pisses them off on the roadway?

I wouldn't, but that's a decision I would make as a parent. I wouldn't want the government forbidding riders with this guy because he has anger issues.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

What new laws are going to stop people from getting firearms if as you state there are people who don't follow the current laws ?

Again the question is do you think people with demonstrated anger issues should have access to guns?

What you're talking about here is revoking a Constitutional right based on ones behavior not associated with that constitutional right.

Have you ever expressed anger in your life? Have you ever resorted to physical violence over such anger? Many people have in their past. Should your wife be restricted from owning a firearm because she threw an ashtray at you during an argument? Should you be restricted from owning a firearm because in return, you smashed her nicknacks? Or is the issue how much damage one does instead of doing damage in the first place, and what point should that be? Who makes that decision?

 

[koshergrl]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

What new laws are going to stop people from getting firearms if as you state there are people who don't follow the current laws ?

Again the question is do you think people with demonstrated anger issues should have access to guns?

What you're talking about here is revoking a Constitutional right based on ones behavior not associated with that constitutional right.

Have you ever expressed anger in your life? Have you ever resorted to physical violence over such anger? Many people have in their past. Should your wife be restricted from owning a firearm because she threw an ashtray at you during an argument? Should you be restricted from owning a firearm because in return, you smashed her nicknacks? Or is the issue how much damage one does instead of doing damage in the first place, and what point should that be? Who makes that decision?

He doesn't know what he's talking about, and the whole rhetorical question/logical fallacy is all about the fact that he doesn't have a REAL argument.

 

[hortysir]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

Were these crimes felonies? Have they been convicted?

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

Repeating your question doesn't answer mine

Just asking your opinion

My opinion depends on whether they've been convicted of a felony

 

[hortysir]

So you're saying laws against rape don't stop rapists, because they won't follow the law anyway. Why does that sound so familiar?

We have criminal laws not to stop crime, but to define crime and then punish those that commit it.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.
Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

Liquor stores and tobacco stores regularly check ID. They are required to by law. I'm well beyond the age where I have a constitutional right to do either, but they are still required to check my ID. I'm sure you understand this, but childishly claim you don't.

But quick to scream about ID to vote down

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game."

If Texas law allows prosecutors to charge felony assault for the above, and if convicted of a felony, they'll both become prohibited persons under Federal firearms statutes.

Absent a felony conviction neither can be lawfully prohibited from possessing firearms, as the state would have failed to afford them due process.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

What new laws are going to stop people from getting firearms if as you state there are people who don't follow the current laws ?

Again the question is do you think people with demonstrated anger issues should have access to guns?

As a matter of fact you want to deny everyone their rights based on YOUR definition of what is and is not acceptable behavior. Once again that is covered by the law currently. Get a court appearance and have a JUDGE determine the behavioral acceptance of each individual suspected of being unstable.