Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts

[BULLDOG]

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:



Are you saying that the folks who run these shows do not know this is going on?

And this man committed a crime. Why is he not in jail? What he did IS ALREADY A CRIME! No gunshow loophole moron, a man doing an illegal transfer. Plain and simple.

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?

 

[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?

 

[westwall]

And this man committed a crime. Why is he not in jail? What he did IS ALREADY A CRIME! No gunshow loophole moron, a man doing an illegal transfer. Plain and simple.

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.

 

[westwall]

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?

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.

 

[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?

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?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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?

 

[westwall]

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?

The ONLY thing that has stopped a rash of rapes was back in the 1970's Florida was experiencing a rash of them so they very publicly trained 3,000 women how to shoot and gave them CCW's so they could legally carry. The rape rate plummeted. Then in the 1980's foreign tourists were being stalked in FL. The authorities couldn't give them guns but the rental car companies removed their stickers and slapped NRA stickers on them. Once again the threat of guns reduced the crime rate.

 

[westwall]

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?

Because the anti gunners demand a gun registration scheme with every one of the background check laws. That's why.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

The ONLY thing that has stopped a rash of rapes was back in the 1970's Florida was experiencing a rash of them so they very publicly trained 3,000 women how to shoot and gave them CCW's so they could legally carry. The rape rate plummeted. Then in the 1980's foreign tourists were being stalked in FL. The authorities couldn't give them guns but the rental car companies removed their stickers and slapped NRA stickers on them. Once again the threat of guns reduced the crime rate.

not sure what that has to do with the subject.

 

[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?

Because the anti gunners demand a gun registration scheme with every one of the background check laws. That's why.

No.I know that's what rush told you, but no.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

For one, they wouldn't change anything. Criminals get guns no matter how many laws there are.

Two, I would be willing to bet that 70% of that 90% don't even understand what universal background checks would require. Just "Do you want background checks for firearms?" Sure, who wouldn't?

Three is the history of liberalism. Liberals always say they only want X. Once X is achieved, they move to the next step, then the next step, then the next....... Mind you that these are the same people who would love to see all guns illegal in this country, but can't because of our US Constitution and rulings thereof.

That's why Republicans are against MORE background 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?

For one, they wouldn't change anything. Criminals get guns no matter how many laws there are.

Two, I would be willing to bet that 70% of that 90% don't even understand what universal background checks would require. Just "Do you want background checks for firearms?" Sure, who wouldn't?

Three is the history of liberalism. Liberals always say they only want X. Once X is achieved, they move to the next step, then the next step, then the next....... Mind you that these are the same people who would love to see all guns illegal in this country, but can't because of our US Constitution and rulings thereof.

That's why Republicans are against MORE background checks.

Grabbing straws there bubba.Just because you believe all those right wing lies doesn't make them true.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

For one, they wouldn't change anything. Criminals get guns no matter how many laws there are.

Two, I would be willing to bet that 70% of that 90% don't even understand what universal background checks would require. Just "Do you want background checks for firearms?" Sure, who wouldn't?

Three is the history of liberalism. Liberals always say they only want X. Once X is achieved, they move to the next step, then the next step, then the next....... Mind you that these are the same people who would love to see all guns illegal in this country, but can't because of our US Constitution and rulings thereof.

That's why Republicans are against MORE background checks.

Grabbing straws there bubba.Just because you believe all those right wing lies doesn't make them true.

And believing left-wing lies does make them true? You know, like we can stop terrorists from getting weapons if we had a law that stated nobody on the No Fly list could get them? How many people on the No Fly list legally purchased guns and did harm with them in our country?

You lefties refuse to look at the man behind the curtain all the time.

 

[davecmarino]

If you don't like guns just move to an area like LA or Chicago that don't allow normal ownership of a gun. I mean they are safe except that those cities are number one and number two in gun deaths each year. Ya, that's working out great for people living there. The criminal is more protected than the law abiding citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

For one, they wouldn't change anything. Criminals get guns no matter how many laws there are.

Two, I would be willing to bet that 70% of that 90% don't even understand what universal background checks would require. Just "Do you want background checks for firearms?" Sure, who wouldn't?

Three is the history of liberalism. Liberals always say they only want X. Once X is achieved, they move to the next step, then the next step, then the next....... Mind you that these are the same people who would love to see all guns illegal in this country, but can't because of our US Constitution and rulings thereof.

That's why Republicans are against MORE background checks.

Grabbing straws there bubba.Just because you believe all those right wing lies doesn't make them true.

And believing left-wing lies does make them true? You know, like we can stop terrorists from getting weapons if we had a law that stated nobody on the No Fly list could get them? How many people on the No Fly list legally purchased guns and did harm with them in our country?

You lefties refuse to look at the man behind the curtain all the time.

Nobody has claimed it would stop all terrorists. Try to think rationally.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Have their rights been revoked by a judge?

 

[whitehall]

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?

 

[Rustic]

Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[westwall]

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?

For one, they wouldn't change anything. Criminals get guns no matter how many laws there are.

Two, I would be willing to bet that 70% of that 90% don't even understand what universal background checks would require. Just "Do you want background checks for firearms?" Sure, who wouldn't?

Three is the history of liberalism. Liberals always say they only want X. Once X is achieved, they move to the next step, then the next step, then the next....... Mind you that these are the same people who would love to see all guns illegal in this country, but can't because of our US Constitution and rulings thereof.

That's why Republicans are against MORE background checks.

Grabbing straws there bubba.Just because you believe all those right wing lies doesn't make them true.

And believing left-wing lies does make them true? You know, like we can stop terrorists from getting weapons if we had a law that stated nobody on the No Fly list could get them? How many people on the No Fly list legally purchased guns and did harm with them in our country?

You lefties refuse to look at the man behind the curtain all the time.

Nobody has claimed it would stop all terrorists. Try to think rationally.

Can you make the claim that it would stop ONE?

 

[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?