Democrat Platform destroys the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[justinacolmena]

The States have the right to a militia, the people have the RKBA.

A well regulated Militia, = The regular military and reserves,
being necessary = which are needed for general defense and having said that
to the security of a free State, = in order to preserve a free state, rather than a Democrat slave state,
the right of the people = the universal human right
to keep and bear Arms, = to possess and carry firearms
shall not be infringed. = shall not be subject to Democrat gun registration, Democrat mental health adjudication, or other Democrat requirements, Democrat terms, and Democrat conditions.

 

[Levant]

The States have the right to a militia, the people have the RKBA.

A well regulated Militia, = The regular military and reserves,
being necessary = which are needed for general defense and having said that
to the security of a free State, = in order to preserve a free state, rather than a Democrat slave state,
the right of the people = the universal human right
to keep and bear Arms, = to possess and carry firearms
shall not be infringed. = shall not be subject to Democrat gun registration, Democrat mental health adjudication, or other Democrat requirements, Democrat terms, and Democrat conditions.

Very confusing post - because you almost sounded like you knew that about which you were posting... But you have no idea what is the definition of "A well regulated Militia". It has nothing at all to do with a standing army - which most of the founders hated - or any reserves or National Guard.

 

[alang1216]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

And more on the loophole that doesn't exist...

The FBI originally claimed that the Charleston Church killer, Dylann Roof, was charged with felony drug possession. Being charged with a felony that could result in a prison term of at least two years is sufficient to result in a person being prohibited from buying a gun (see copy of relevant part of criminal code below). He can also be banned from buying a gun if he is an addict or admits to being an addict. First, let’s take the July 10th statement from the FBI:

On April 11, Roof attempted to purchase a handgun from a store in West Columbia, South Carolina, a near suburb of Columbia. That day was a Saturday. On the next business day, April 13, an examiner in our West Virginia facility was assigned the case and began to process it.
Her initial check of Roof’s criminal history showed that he had been arrested in South Carolina March 1 on a felony drug charge. This charge alone is not enough to deny proceeding with the transaction. As a result, this charge required further inquiry of two potential reasons to deny the transaction. First, the person could have been convicted of a felony since the arrest. Second, the underlying facts of the arrest could show the person to be an unlawful drug user or addict. . . .
Importantly, as part of that arrest, the report by the Columbia police reflected that Roof admitted he was in possession of drugs. If a NICS examiner saw that, Roof would be denied permission to buy a gun. . . .

There are multiple errors here in both discussing the law and the facts of the case. As it happens, Roof was arrested for a misdemeanor drug possession, not a felony, and that the maximum prison time that he would face was 6 months. For example, there is this from the New York Times:
=======
Roof had no previous arrests for anything, let alone drugs. A first arrest for a misdemeanor drug possession (with a six month maximum prison term) for a person with no previous criminal record at all? If this were applied consistently, it would imply that anyone with a misdemeanor arrest for marijuana possession would be banned from being able to purchase a gun. I suspect that if the FBI were asked if that is the case, they would clearly say “no.” This surely smacks of the FBI selectively changing their standards for a political result here.

There are other problems with Hillary Clinton’s story here. For example, Roof’s mother had taken the gun from him and he stole it back. Even if he was banned from legally acquiring a gun, Roof’s family apparently owned multiple guns and presumably he could have stolen another gun if he was intent on committing a crime.

Over all, Clinton probably references supporting four or five different gun control laws in the clip at the top of the page: universal background checks (including the gun show and online loopholes), No-fly list denials, and suing gun makers and sellers for guns used in crime.

One moment, please...

 

[daveman]

I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.

"Dangerous guns".

No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.

"Dangerous people".

Getting closer there. Two problems, though.

1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.

2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.

Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.

You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.

Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?

I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.

Chicago has lots of gun regulations.

How well are they working?

From Tuesday of last week:

23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago

Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?

Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.

Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.

Obviously.

Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?

A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.

The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.

More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.

And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?

Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.

Oh, you mean like this guy?

A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.

The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.

"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.

"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"

Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.

Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.

Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.

He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."

He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.

Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."

"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.

Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.

"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.

Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.

Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.

I don't know... what do you think?

I think he's pretty stupid, thinking he could just waltz in a buy a gun with a record. But then, he's a leftist, and believes leftist bullshit about guns. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions.

 

[daveman]

Oh put-lease. That argument is ridiculous on multiple levels. The first is to assume that our guaranteed rights aren’t equally important. Well...you aren’t going to have a free and fair election if don’t have free speech or the right to assemble. The second is the implication that countries with stricter gun control dont have free and fair elections.

You mean free and fair like in Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? China?

Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Germany, Norway, Australia, Japan....

Look at Finland...a common sense and sane approach to guns.

How gun laws in a dozen countries compare with New Zealand's new ban on semiautomatic weapons

The approach to gun laws in each of the 12 countries varies widely depending on whether owning a gun is considered a right or a privilege.

www.usatoday.com

Finland
Finland, where hunting is popular, has the highest per capita gun ownership in the Nordic countries. Handgun license applicants are allowed to purchase firearms only if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview and show they have a proper gun storage unit.

France......

ris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

The arsenal of weapons deployed by the eight attackers who terrorised Paris on Friday night underlined France’s gun control problems and raised the spectre of further attacks.

The country has extremely strict weapons laws, but Europe’s open borders and growing trade in illegal weapons means assault rifles are relatively easy to come by on the black market.


===============
France’s real gun problem

Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns.

The guns used in high-profile terror attacks are really just the tip of the iceberg. In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities.

Of those guns, around 4,000 were likely to be "war weapons," Le Figaro reported, referring to items such as the Kalashnikov AK-variant rifles and Uzis. Statistics from the National Observatory for Delinquency, a government body created in 2003, suggest that the number of guns in France has grown by double digits every year.

Reports of 'heavy gunfire' on the streets of French city of Nimes | Daily Mail Online

Machine-gun shots have been heard on the streets of a French city this evening as it was claimed a 'shootout' took place between rival gangs.

Repeated 'heavy gunfire' bursts were let off in the city of Nimes in southern France after armed men were seen in the area.

Social media videos showed several people running through the street as shots rang out at around 8.30pm.

Initial reports suggested the shooting could have been linked to gangs operating in the area.

Residents in a suburb of Pissevin district in the city claimed gang members shot at a building occupied by a rival group.

And....what is the rate of gun violence and deaths in those countries compared to the US?

That is what matters, not individual cases. The big picture.

...unless you're talking about rape, apparently.

You can't have it both ways, though you desperately want to.

 

[justinacolmena]

... But you have no idea what is the definition of "A well regulated Militia". It has nothing at all to do with a standing army - which most of the founders hated - or any reserves or National Guard

Guns being banned, and none of the above being necessary for security or defense because a free state is always at peace with the loving kindness of the world.

 

[justinacolmena]

. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions

What about the store employees who do sell guns to customers? Take fingerprints and betray them to fascist cops after the sale, arrange a set-up for a false arrest and lifetime imprisonment for felony possession of a gun by a felon, no court appearance needed. I mean all gun buyers (except cops) are prima facie felons in federal court to the feds no matter what. What are you smoking otherwise?

 

[daveman]

. He blamed the store employees for not selling him a gun, instead of his own actions

What about the store employees who do sell guns to customers? Take fingerprints and betray them to fascist cops after the sale, arrange a set-up for a false arrest and lifetime imprisonment for felony possession of a gun by a felon, no court appearance needed. I mean all gun buyers (except cops) are prima facie felons in federal court to the feds no matter what. What are you smoking otherwise?

I'm not smoking anything. Maybe I should so I can understand your post.

 

[alang1216]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

When something is broken I usually try and fix it before I throw it out.

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

When something is broken I usually try and fix it before I throw it out.

There is nothing to fix. The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

 

[alang1216]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

When something is broken I usually try and fix it before I throw it out.

There is nothing to fix. The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Is your car registered?

 

[alang1216]

The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Actually that is kind of how I feel about voter ID laws and opposition to mail-in ballots.

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

When something is broken I usually try and fix it before I throw it out.

There is nothing to fix. The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Is your car registered?

My car isn't a Right. How many times do we have to explain this to people like you?

 

[2aguy]

The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Actually that is kind of how I feel about voter ID laws and opposition to mail-in ballots.

Voter I.D. simply shows you are you and you get one vote. Mail in voting didn't work in New Jersey..they lost 10,000 ballots through disqualification...and the people who sent them couldn't do them over....like they could if they were at a polling station.....and CBS showed it didn't work as the U.S. postal service lost 3% of the ballots....and about 20,000 that didn't reach the post office in 4 days.......

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

When something is broken I usually try and fix it before I throw it out.

There is nothing to fix. The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Is your car registered?

And yes, the democrat party will one day come after cars...but right now they want to ban guns....and to do that they first need to know who has them so they can't be hidden...and to do that, they first need registration....

We know that registration is the 2nd to last step from Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany........you have no leg to stand on. The truth, facts, reality and history show exactly why universal background checks are evil and need to be stopped.

 

[alang1216]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

When something is broken I usually try and fix it before I throw it out.

There is nothing to fix. The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Is your car registered?

My car isn't a Right. How many times do we have to explain this to people like you?

It's not a right, so it could be confiscated, but no one has tried to take your car away from you. Yet you live in fear someone will confiscate your guns if you have to register them?

 

[alang1216]

The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Actually that is kind of how I feel about voter ID laws and opposition to mail-in ballots.

Voter I.D. simply shows you are you and you get one vote. Mail in voting didn't work in New Jersey..they lost 10,000 ballots through disqualification...and the people who sent them couldn't do them over....like they could if they were at a polling station.....and CBS showed it didn't work as the U.S. postal service lost 3% of the ballots....and about 20,000 that didn't reach the post office in 4 days.......

Won't a background check simply show you are you?

 

[2aguy]

The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?

Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.

They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.

The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-782a-d3de-ab7b-783b9b650000

12020 Democratic Party Platform


Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

Which of these will impact you directly? They all seem like common sense ideas that shouldn't adversely impact most users.

1. enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
2. close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and
3. adequately fund the federal background check system
4. close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms.
5. ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
6. incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will
7. pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes.
8. gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business,
9. prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

They are all stupid ideas...that impact anyone who owns a gun.

#7...do you realize that gun makers are already held accountable for product liability just like every other business?

#9....do you understand that they want to sue gun makers and gun stores for crimes they didn't commit?

There is no Charlestown loophole...

Nothing in that list is based in truth, facts or reality, it is all just more crushing the 2nd Amendment one stupid new law at a time.

4 - House of Representatives passed legislation related to gun control, the latest proposal dubbed the so-called "Charleston loophole" bill, aimed at closing a gap in the background check system that allowed a man to purchase a gun and kill nine members of a church nearly four years ago. The bill, HR 1112 was sponsored by Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and -- as House Democratic whip -- the highest ranking African-American member of Congress.
The legislation addresses a loophole in current law that enables some firearms to be transferred by licensed gun dealers before the required background checks have been completed, a loophole that allowed Dylann Roof to buy a gun in 2015 and kill nine people at Mother Emanuel Church -- one of the most well known historically black churches in Charleston, South Carolina.

9 - Drug companies were reckless in the way they marketed and sold their products and were held responsible. I don't know that gun manufacturers were reckless but they should not receive special protections if they were.

There was no loophole.....and the gun makers don't have special protections. They didn't pull the triggers in any of the shootings....they didn't lie or sell faulty products........

The loophole didn't even apply...

It’s unclear, of course, if the pistol Roof received for his birthday is the same semiautomatic handgun that police say was used in the Charleston church shooting. If Roof owned guns he acquired prior to his felony charge, he would have been allowed to hang onto them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/18/the-legal-loophole-that-allowed-dylann-roof-to-get-a-gun/

But the truth is more complicated. First, even a perfectly functioning background check system very likely wouldn’t have stopped Roof from getting a gun. Second, the current background check system is a much worse mess than Comey recognizes.

With Roof planning his attack for at least six months, it seems hard to believe that he couldn’t have figured out some way of obtaining a gun. Indeed, he stole the gun that he used in this attack.

The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. Comey’s comments focus on one type of error, where someone who should have been prohibited from getting a gun wasn’t stopped. But a much more common error involves people who should have been able to buy guns but are stopped.

One moment, please...

Why Background Checks Couldn’t Stop Dylan Roof

Unless the databases are dramatically improved, expanded background checks are likely to do more harm than good.

dailycaller.com

What else do you have....

When something is broken I usually try and fix it before I throw it out.

There is nothing to fix. The only reason anti-gun extremists want universal background checks is to get gun registration...which is what they need for the moment they have the power to ban and confiscate guns.

Is your car registered?

My car isn't a Right. How many times do we have to explain this to people like you?

It's not a right, so it could be confiscated, but no one has tried to take your car away from you. Yet you live in fear someone will confiscate your guns if you have to register them?

Yep....because I know history. Britain...registered guns, confiscated guns. Australia, registered guns, confiscated guns. New Zealand, registered guns, confiscated guns....France, registered guns, confiscated guns. Germany, registered guns, confiscated guns, murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children.

Beto O'rourke stated they would go house to house to confiscate guns.......and biden said he will be his point man on guns...