Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[martybegan]

I figure you could get participating gun shops to fire the weapon for ballistics tests and send the bullets to the FBI to be quick scanned and put in a data base. The only thing the gun store owner would have to do is check the serial number and renew the registration, so a minor fee would cover the whole procedure, even with many firearms. The bullets could be boxed individually with the necessary information and sent periodically. The system to renew would be staggered throughout the year to prevent a rush.

The renewable registration proves the weapon is still in the hands of the owner so the firearm can't go elsewhere unless stolen. The registration is transferred when sold, starting from the time of manufacture, meaning all guns are registered, the guns in the gun store, the guns in a police force and the military. The periodic ballistics tests discourage someone ever wanting to use the gun in a crime. The penalties of possessing an unregistered weapon are severe, so the market for buying a stolen weapon dries up and burglars aren't going to want to fool with them. Someone repeatedly buying weapons and not renewing them without good reason would signal a straw purchase.

As far as the fee, consider it insurance and the added safety that you won't need that weapon to protect you from home invasion with criminals having weapons. Under the system if your weapons are stolen, a data base exists for them to be returned to you. Even a very minimal fee is enough to encourage a gunshop to get involved in ballistics testing and renewing the registration. How long does it take to fire a gun and package the bullet? How long does it take to check a serial number against a registration? There would also be a market for confiscated unregistered firearms away from cities, so gun shops and the public could profit from that. Gun shows could set up waiting periods by shipping their sold merchantise to these local participating gun stores to be picked up after the waiting (cooling off) period.

Once the remaining unregistered weapons are removed, criminals would be fearful to use a weapon that can be traced back to them. Consider a case involving a homicide from a stolen weapon and the police trace the gun in the crime to a burglary of firearms! Maybe the cops have a variety of possible suspects and show the pictures to the person who was burglarized and he says, "sure, I know that guy and he's been here seeing my guns.? Case closed! There are many ways even a stolen weapons can lead to an arrest.

Then they would start making them, as I said before.

If you had a brain you would know criminals aren't going to make their own guns and gang bang. The penalty for having a homemade gun are much worse than having a real one and the cops will profile people to remove guns from their streets. The cops will use stats and focus on that area, searching people every day.

Most homicides aren't planned in advance.

It will become a booming industry. Where there is something restricted that people want, there is a black market for it.

 

[Coyote]

Back on topic...The current background checks have proven completely ineffective, as evidenced by the headline grabbing mass murders and the one-by-one killings in the streets of DC, NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etcetera.

How will doubling down on ineffectiveness be of any benefit to anyone, but the politicians ans the bureaucrats?

What verifiable proof do you have that background checks stop anything that matters?

What evidence do you that they are "completely" ineffective? The stats for gun violence shows otherwise (though I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing): Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

Dealth by blunt objects, alas, remains relatively unchanged. I suspect current headlines have more to do with what the media chooses to highlight than it does with actual trends in violence.

The current background checks cover only a portion of gun sales and completely exclude private transactions and gun shows. I think it is reasonable to suppose that broadening background checks might help.

Correlation does not equal causation.

I agree - that is why I stated: though I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing - it is hard to prove direct correlation on anything as complex as this.

Current background checks cover all sales by licensed dealers, whether at their store fronts, their garages or at gun shows...Private sales/transfers are but a minority of the total.

Paducah, Jonesboro, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Aurora, the Clackamas mall shooting al happened despite background checks.....There is no palpable evidence to support your claim that more background checks will help anyone at all but the criminals.

None.

They did happen despite background checks but again, two points: nothing is perfect and the argument that because it doesn't prevent any instance means it's a failure is fallacious. How many criminals might not bother getting a gun if they have to submit to a background check? Some might go underground, some might be disuaded.

What palpable evidence is there that background checks helps criminals? That's quite a claim.

PS...That peak on your chart happened during a time of background checks.

It did? My understanding is that background checks, with the FBI's NICS, began in 1998.

 

[Dubya]

You couldnt fight your way out of a paper bag. All air no wind.

I was trained for war, were you? It isn't me running my mouth about taking on the government and it's only me telling you that you have more to worry about than those black helicopters. As long as I'm alive, you right-wing scum are not taking over this country and I'm old enough to not have much to lose. I'd shoot you down like dogs, if you ever stood up against America.

Go to the polls like a loser should and leave the rest to us! Don't ever delude yourself into thinking people who swore an oath of allegience will support you.

Again with all the unconfirmable facts. Getting angry now eh? Keep blowing in the wind. The only reason I have to take on the government is if it gets to the point where it tries to take on me.

So now voting is for losers, eh?

I AM IN YOUR MIND, I AM PERFORMING BRAIN CONTROL ON YOU RIGHT NOW! YOU ARE IN MY POWER!

and I release you!

Sure it is, all that laughing at your ass is only anger.

Everything you do is for losers. My weapons weren't affected by your New York state laws.

 

[martybegan]

I was trained for war, were you? It isn't me running my mouth about taking on the government and it's only me telling you that you have more to worry about than those black helicopters. As long as I'm alive, you right-wing scum are not taking over this country and I'm old enough to not have much to lose. I'd shoot you down like dogs, if you ever stood up against America.

Go to the polls like a loser should and leave the rest to us! Don't ever delude yourself into thinking people who swore an oath of allegience will support you.

Again with all the unconfirmable facts. Getting angry now eh? Keep blowing in the wind. The only reason I have to take on the government is if it gets to the point where it tries to take on me.

So now voting is for losers, eh?

I AM IN YOUR MIND, I AM PERFORMING BRAIN CONTROL ON YOU RIGHT NOW! YOU ARE IN MY POWER!

and I release you!

Sure it is, all that laughing at your ass is only anger.

Everything you do is for losers. My weapons weren't affected by your New York state laws.

Your anger maybe. I'm like a cat playing with a piece of string.

A lying cowardly piece of string.

I've got more win in my left pinkie toe then you have in your entire body.

 

[Dubya]

Then they would start making them, as I said before.

If you had a brain you would know criminals aren't going to make their own guns and gang bang. The penalty for having a homemade gun are much worse than having a real one and the cops will profile people to remove guns from their streets. The cops will use stats and focus on that area, searching people every day.

Most homicides aren't planned in advance.

It will become a booming industry. Where there is something restricted that people want, there is a black market for it.

What are they going to want, a five year felony conviction for being stupid? Once guys are restricted in cities, it's smarter to just avoid the hassle of having them and they can be removed faster than returned. A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun. They'll work out other ways to cope with the new reality.

 

[Oddball]

If you had a brain you would know criminals aren't going to make their own guns and gang bang. The penalty for having a homemade gun are much worse than having a real one and the cops will profile people to remove guns from their streets. The cops will use stats and focus on that area, searching people every day.

Most homicides aren't planned in advance.

It will become a booming industry. Where there is something restricted that people want, there is a black market for it.

What are they going to want, a five year felony conviction for being stupid? Once guys are restricted in cities, it's smarter to just avoid the hassle of having them and they can be removed faster than returned. A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun. They'll work out other ways to cope with the new reality.

People are willing to risk that for selling cocaine and heroin, you dope...What the fuck makes you think guns would be any different?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Post where I said anything about banning guns! You make up shit, Windbag, so you can't even deal with the simple reality of what someone has said. When you aren't correct about what someone has said, you can't be correct evaluating what was said. That was just another insane impulse where mind keeps telling you they will ban guns, whether they said it or not.

Either post a quote of what wasn't said or just admit you're a lying ass loser! We know which choice that will be.

Guns are not banned in the UK. It is perfectly legal to won them, as long as you accept the government registration program. That is exactly what you want to do here, and you are trying to deflect this into a debate about something else rather than admit you are wrong.

If only I was stupid enough to cooperate.

If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.

I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.

There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.

What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.

You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.

Did I not already point out that I am not stupid enough to cooperate with your attempt to change the subject? Do you think adding more words to your attempt to obfuscate the issue will confuse me?

You are the one that wants to ban assault weapons, which, if I am not mistaken, are guns. You also want to track every gun in existence in this country in the deluded belief that it will prevent gun violence. When I point out a real world example of the a country that actually bans assault weapons, and restricts the transfer of other weapons, and also has a complete registry of every gun that is legally owned, and show that the result is an increase in gun violence, you pretend I am accusing you of posting something else.

Stick to the actual topic here, which is the evidence that your, in your words, plan to sensibly restrict guns to reduce gun violence does not work.

 

[Coyote]

Back on topic...The current background checks have proven completely ineffective, as evidenced by the headline grabbing mass murders and the one-by-one killings in the streets of DC, NY, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etcetera.

How will doubling down on ineffectiveness be of any benefit to anyone, but the politicians ans the bureaucrats?

What verifiable proof do you have that background checks stop anything that matters?

What evidence do you that they are "completely" ineffective? The stats for gun violence shows otherwise (though I suspect the reduction is do to multiple factors, not any one thing): Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

Dealth by blunt objects, alas, remains relatively unchanged. I suspect current headlines have more to do with what the media chooses to highlight than it does with actual trends in violence.

The current background checks cover only a portion of gun sales and completely exclude private transactions and gun shows. I think it is reasonable to suppose that broadening background checks might help.

Funny, that chart does not show stats for gun violence, all it shows is the different ways of killing people/.

Yup. It shows homicide.

However, the link with it includes information on all gun related violence.

How can you argue that it proves that background checks reduce gun violence when it doesn't track gun violence or background checks?

I'm not claiming it "proves" anything because most likely gun related violence statistics are influenced by multiple factors (which I said in my post) - however, since background checks are one of the factors involved it's fair to say that they might have a hand in lowering some of the rates. Can you prove they have no effect?

Is the real problem here that you are a complete fucking idiot that doesn't understand what he is talking about?

Nah, I think the real problem is your lack of reading comprehension

 

[Dubya]

Again with all the unconfirmable facts. Getting angry now eh? Keep blowing in the wind. The only reason I have to take on the government is if it gets to the point where it tries to take on me.

So now voting is for losers, eh?

I AM IN YOUR MIND, I AM PERFORMING BRAIN CONTROL ON YOU RIGHT NOW! YOU ARE IN MY POWER!

and I release you!

Sure it is, all that laughing at your ass is only anger.

Everything you do is for losers. My weapons weren't affected by your New York state laws.

Your anger maybe. I'm like a cat playing with a piece of string.

A lying cowardly piece of string.

I've got more win in my left pinkie toe then you have in your entire body.

How's your magazines or are you still crying about them? You've already lost the gun control battle and it's only going to get worse for you. I'm not the one saying I wish I could move.

Keep telling yourself what a winner you are, so I can laugh pointing out the detail of your great victory! I guess that vet up in New York thought he was a winner too, telling that cop he was there to sell 5 illegal magazines with for military use only written on them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A universal background check will help enforcement - a partial background check is next to useless. Sound like a plan?

I've asked this before, now I'll do it again, how do you verifiably get universal background checks? Tell me, how would it work, and how do you verify compliance?

Truthfully, I don't know. But then again - I don't know the ins and outs of how a lot of laws work in terms of verifying compliance. Do you?

What is obvious to me is a background check is better than no background check.
A universal background check - even if incomplete in terms of compliance - is better than a partial background check.

What's so darn difficult in doing that?

Let me see if I understand your position.

You have no idea how effective background checks are, yet it is still obvious that it works. Is that because you believe in magic, or just that you prefer to live in a fantasy world where good intentions matter more than actual data?

What about that makes it hard to understand? How about the fact that I don't think something is true simply because I want to believe it is, and it makes absolutely no sense that anyone would live their life in a way that does not demand evidence for everything.

 

[Oddball]

PS...That peak on your chart happened during a time of background checks.

It did? My understanding is that background checks, with the FBI's NICS, began in 1998.

The Brady bill passed in 1993....Regardless, correlation still doesn't equal causation....Never has, never will.

P.S...The Brady bill encompassed ALL firearms, not just handguns.

 

[Coyote]

I've asked this before, now I'll do it again, how do you verifiably get universal background checks? Tell me, how would it work, and how do you verify compliance?

Truthfully, I don't know. But then again - I don't know the ins and outs of how a lot of laws work in terms of verifying compliance. Do you?

What is obvious to me is a background check is better than no background check.
A universal background check - even if incomplete in terms of compliance - is better than a partial background check.

What's so darn difficult in doing that?

Let me see if I understand your position.

You have no idea how effective background checks are, yet it is still obvious that it works. Is that because you believe in magic, or just that you prefer to live in a fantasy world where good intentions matter more than actual data?

No. I have no idea how you would verify compliance (as stated in the original post).

Do you have any actual data? There's no point in discussion of magic and fantasy words and anyone's intentions when you haven't brought forth anything remotely resembling actual data.

What about that makes it hard to understand?

Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

How about the fact that I don't think something is true simply because I want to believe it is,

Cool. Then please, present your data proving that background checks have no effect on gun violence.

and it makes absolutely no sense that anyone would live their life in a way that does not demand evidence for everything.

You do...so what's your problem?

 

[Dubya]

It will become a booming industry. Where there is something restricted that people want, there is a black market for it.

What are they going to want, a five year felony conviction for being stupid? Once guys are restricted in cities, it's smarter to just avoid the hassle of having them and they can be removed faster than returned. A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun. They'll work out other ways to cope with the new reality.

People are willing to risk that for selling cocaine and heroin, you dope...What the fuck makes you think guns would be any different?

Cops in cities target areas and people to remove guns from the streets and that is a battle that has proven it can be won. If they search enough people, they're going to find a gun and with the supply halting, the guns that were on the streets will dry up.

Your mindless, NRA gun nutter, "keep the status quo" objections are never going to convince rational people that nothing can be done and guess what, you're ran out of fools to buy that bullshit!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are full of shit, Windbag, and the fact that the military uses it shows how full of shit you are. It'll penetrate more than skin and is liable to go right through you if it misses bone. The M-16 was considered an inhumane weapon in Vietnam, because of the way the bullet would start to tumble and travel to places all over the body. That happens with a very high speed bullet.

The military has one reason to use them, the average soldier has to carry 75 pounds of gear into combat if they use the lightweight weapons that scare the shit out of you. Why do you think special forces carry heavier weapons?

By the way, the reason an M-16 tumbled when it hit in Vietnam is that the tip of the bullet was heavier than the rear of the bullet. This has nothing to do with muzzle velocity, something any competent armorer would tell you. In fact, higher velocity bullets tend to make cleaner holes than lower velocity ones.

I've shot a lot of military rounds and they will penetrate straight until they hit something. The claim was the tip would quiver as it went through the air. Unless it penetrated something uniform, it would start to tumble.

Umm, what? Can you tell me how they can penetrate without hitting something? The claim was that the tip would quiver? Who made that claim? Did the same guy also send you after a left handed monkey wrench?

What actually happens is that, because the tip is denser than the end, the tip will decelerate then it strikes something and the rear will continue forward. This results in deformation of the round, which causes the round to tumble. This happens as soon as it hits anything.

Modern military rounds are not made this way, and civilian rounds have never been made this way. The only reason we are discussing this at all is you insist on declaring yourself an expert on everything, yet you are being schooled by a guy who joined the Navy so he wouldn't have to shoot a weapon because he know he can't hit the broad side of a barn.

 

[Oddball]

What are they going to want, a five year felony conviction for being stupid? Once guys are restricted in cities, it's smarter to just avoid the hassle of having them and they can be removed faster than returned. A member of a gang is not going to want to be on the streets with a gun. They'll work out other ways to cope with the new reality.

People are willing to risk that for selling cocaine and heroin, you dope...What the fuck makes you think guns would be any different?

Cops in cities target areas and people to remove guns from the streets and that is a battle that has proven it can be won. If they search enough people, they're going to find a gun and with the supply halting, the guns that were on the streets will dry up.

Your mindless, NRA gun nutter, "keep the status quo" objections are never going to convince rational people that nothing can be done and guess what, you're ran out of fools to buy that bullshit!

Cops in cities have been targeting dope dealers for decades and still I could still lay my mitts on an ounce of coke or heroin, a bottle full of 'scrip pain killers and/or a pound of weed with no more than a few phone calls.....A few "clean" firearms wouldn't be no thang.

You are truly one stupid mothafuckah.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you can't post where I said anything about banning guns, then you are a liar and admitting it by not posting it.

I want renewable registration with background checks and periodic ballistics tests. With that, I don't really care if they ban a type of gun or not, but they could place some as Title II and not ban them. That's up to the people living in that area to make the laws that benefit them. My system is better than the present Title II weapons system. All I want is to discourage people shooting others with guns and making sure the guns are in the control of the owner. I don't give a fuck if you have 20 guns under those circumstances, as long as they are registered and watched to keep them out of the wrong hands. If the weapon is reported stolen and shows up in the future, I want it returned to the owner.

There was a guy here a couple days ago who has 22 guns and many are passed down from generations, like a couple Winchester Model 1873 rifles. He was telling me about his .300 Winchester Magnum and hunting elk from a helicopter. My brother probably has that many and nearly all are assault weapons. The point is as long as someone isn't purchasing and giving those weapons to criminals, it isn't important if they like to shoot them.

What's going to happen to those people when you gun nutters continue to be unreasonable and the states stick it up your ass? Your stupidity is going to hurt those law abiding citizens who don't mind being responsible and want the guns taken out of the hands of criminals and gangs. There are benefits to gun owners for registration of firearms. If the weapon is stolen, there is a system to return it. It's a benefit to not have guns in the hands of criminals and to discourage someone stealing weapons by shutting down the market for stolen weapons. When a person won't tranfer the registration, you know the gun is stolen. When having an unregistered weapon is a serious offense, people aren't going to want to buy them.

You gun nutters are just like a bunch of kids who screw it up for everybody.

Why renewable registration and periodic ballistics tests? Who would pay for them? Because...if the gun owner has to pay, then I would object to that for the same reason I would object to a voter having to pay to get an "acceptable" id or documents to prove his right to vote. It begins to put unreasonable obstacles to the persons right to excersize his right.

I figure you could get participating gun shops to fire the weapon for ballistics tests and send the bullets to the FBI to be quick scanned and put in a data base. The only thing the gun store owner would have to do is check the serial number and renew the registration, so a minor fee would cover the whole procedure, even with many firearms. The bullets could be boxed individually with the necessary information and sent periodically. The system to renew would be staggered throughout the year to prevent a rush.

The renewable registration proves the weapon is still in the hands of the owner so the firearm can't go elsewhere unless stolen. The registration is transferred when sold, starting from the time of manufacture, meaning all guns are registered, the guns in the gun store, the guns in a police force and the military. The periodic ballistics tests discourage someone ever wanting to use the gun in a crime. The penalties of possessing an unregistered weapon are severe, so the market for buying a stolen weapon dries up and burglars aren't going to want to fool with them. Someone repeatedly buying weapons and not renewing them without good reason would signal a straw purchase.

As far as the fee, consider it insurance and the added safety that you won't need that weapon to protect you from home invasion with criminals having weapons. Under the system if your weapons are stolen, a data base exists for them to be returned to you. Even a very minimal fee is enough to encourage a gunshop to get involved in ballistics testing and renewing the registration. How long does it take to fire a gun and package the bullet? How long does it take to check a serial number against a registration? There would also be a market for confiscated unregistered firearms away from cities, so gun shops and the public could profit from that. Gun shows could set up waiting periods by shipping their sold merchantise to these local participating gun stores to be picked up after the waiting (cooling off) period.

Once the remaining unregistered weapons are removed, criminals would be fearful to use a weapon that can be traced back to them. Consider a case involving a homicide from a stolen weapon and the police trace the gun in the crime to a burglary of firearms! Maybe the cops have a variety of possible suspects and show the pictures to the person who was burglarized and he says, "sure, I know that guy and he's been here seeing my guns.? Case closed! There are many ways even a stolen weapons can lead to an arrest.

Ever hear of the 5th Amendment?

 

[OKTexas]

All laws apply to the law abiding. Criminals will ignore them. So why have any laws?

There are already laws to punish criminals, adding more restrictions on the law abiding will not change that and will not improve public safety. Even criminals are protected by the 4th Amendment yet you want to intrude on those rights of non-criminals. How does that make sense?

So, as to the first sentence, it sounds as if you are saying laws to punish criminals (as opposed to prevent criminals) are sufficient. How does that make sense?

Claiming that it only adds restrictions to the law abiding is false - it doesn't. In any regulation or law - it is always going to be the law abiding that bears the brunt of it but in the process a certain number of criminals will be stopped.

Punishing acts and not possibilities is the foundation our legal system is built on, crime prevention is for the sociologist, punishment of crime is for our legal system. When you start guarding against possibilities where does it end, do you really want the whole country to have the nanny government of NYC where they dictate behavior down to salt intake and soda size. That's not a country I want to live in. What it all boils down to, there is a price to be paid for freedom and it's been paid since our founding in blood and treasure, we can try to minimize the cost, but it will always be there. Bad people are always going to be out there and they will get their occasional victories and sometimes the only thing we can do is respond appropriately when that time comes, we will never be able to stop them all. But we have to examine what price we are willing to pay to try to avoid the inevitable.

 

[Coyote]

PS...That peak on your chart happened during a time of background checks.

It did? My understanding is that background checks, with the FBI's NICS, began in 1998.

The Brady bill passed in 1993....Regardless, correlation still doesn't equal causation....Never has, never will.

P.S...The Brady bill encompassed ALL firearms, not just handguns.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, while the Brady Bill may have required background checks - an effective system was not in place until NICS right?

Sometimes correlation does equal causation. El Nino cycles can cause corresponding cycles of aridity or increased rainfall in other parts of the world. Rush hour traffic can cause a longer drive. Spending an inordinate amount of time on the computer can make me to forget I have the tea kettle on and cause a meltdown. Which just happened...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All laws apply to the law abiding. Criminals will ignore them. So why have any laws?

There are already laws to punish criminals, adding more restrictions on the law abiding will not change that and will not improve public safety. Even criminals are protected by the 4th Amendment yet you want to intrude on those rights of non-criminals. How does that make sense?

So, as to the first sentence, it sounds as if you are saying laws to punish criminals (as opposed to prevent criminals) are sufficient. How does that make sense?

Claiming that it only adds restrictions to the law abiding is false - it doesn't. In any regulation or law - it is always going to be the law abiding that bears the brunt of it but in the process a certain number of criminals will be stopped.

Can you point out what laws prevent crimes? Until you do nothing you said makes sense.

 

[martybegan]

Sure it is, all that laughing at your ass is only anger.

Everything you do is for losers. My weapons weren't affected by your New York state laws.

Your anger maybe. I'm like a cat playing with a piece of string.

A lying cowardly piece of string.

I've got more win in my left pinkie toe then you have in your entire body.

How's your magazines or are you still crying about them? You've already lost the gun control battle and it's only going to get worse for you. I'm not the one saying I wish I could move.

Keep telling yourself what a winner you are, so I can laugh pointing out the detail of your great victory! I guess that vet up in New York thought he was a winner too, telling that cop he was there to sell 5 illegal magazines with for military use only written on them.

The NY law will be overturned at least in part by the courts. Or even better when every anti gun nut upstate is voted out of office.

Remember I dont even own a gun yet. I just dont feel the need to eliminate the right of others to own one, up to and including a semi automatic rifle with whatever fucking mag they want, and to not have to have it registered with a nanny state grabbing government.

Keep posting, keep upping my thanks count and rep count, and keep that grey box by your post #.