Gun control laws don't work....these guys had a rocket propelled grenade, and an aresnal..

[Brain357]

Most buy in private sale with no background check.

No. You are wrong again....most criminals get their guns from people who can pass criminal background checks....that guy then illegally sells the gun to the criminal....that is 40% of the illegal gun market...and they aren't going to do a background check to sell those guns, they know they are breaking the law....the next 40% comes from stealing the guns....the other 20 I'll have to look up.......

And again...background checks only work for law abiding citizens who voluntarily submit to them....criminals don't, and get their guns faster than the law abiding gun owner...

So in a private sale.

Okay brain....it is an illegal sale and a background check does not stop it..........so you can have super dooper rainbow background checks and it still won't stop illegal sales of guns to felons.....private or at a gun store that is willing to break the law...as this article shows...

frontline hot guns How Criminals Get Guns PBS

"Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

Background check defeated.....

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen.

Background check defeated....

And if we had registration we could be sure to catch all those illegal sellers.

What point do you not get brain...they are already saying that the guns they are selling to criminals are lost or stolen so unless you catch them in the act you can register them all you want and it won't make a difference......it may take years for the police to get their hands on an illegal gun after the sale.......

The government already knows they are missing guns...because they have to report them to the government...right now....today......without any new laws...and they are still selling illegal guns to criminals......

It would make getting a gun harder as the sellers would be more likely to be caught.

 

[ogibillm]

While not for gun control, think I'd be ok with rpg-control.

which means you are for arms control.

nearly every reasonable person agrees that there is a limit to the arms an individual should have access to. setting that limit seems to be an issue.

 

[ogibillm]

So....so much for background checks, gun registration, magazine limits, and licensing law abiding citizens...since they are the ones obeying gun laws it is pointless.....

However...these two thugs probably couldn't pass background checks, and aren't required to register guns because the supreme court says felons do not have to register illegal guns, and something tells me they would not obey magazine limit laws.....

Oh...and they had a rocket propelled grenade launcher.....and you know what....as probable felons....they can't have those either....

Rocket-launcher attack on Fla. police department thwarted - NY Daily News

Authorities say a plot to attack a central Florida police department with a rocket launcher has been foiled, just days before the onslaught was slated to go down.


Monday's planned attack on the Eustis Police Department was thwarted after the arrest of two men and discovery of more than 20 weapons, drugs and bullet proof vests in a shed, the Marion County Sheriff's Office said Monday.


Authorities credited Saturday's arrests to a tip about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher being stored inside a shed.


Capt. James Pogue said a search of that shed recovered 22 firearms, containers of black powder, more than a pound of marijuana, both powdered and crack cocaine, prescription pills, scales, two bulletproof vests and other drugs, the Orlando Sentinel reported.


Eustis Police Chief Fred Cobb was alerted to the plotted attack on Friday and described himself as "blindsided" by its news, MyNews13 reported.


The following day Christopher Conger, 32, and Jeremy Robertson, 29, were arrested and hit with a number of charges. Those include possession of cocaine with intent to sell, grand theft of a firearm, using or displaying a firearm during a felony and wearing a bulletproof vest during certain offenses.


So....no licensing required...these guys were caught with guns...lock them up....no background checks required, they were caught with illegal guns...lock them up....

See....the best gun control laws = lock up criminals who get caught with guns....

Then you don't have to bother law abiding citizens....but of course...that is who you actually want to bother isn't it......

How many crimes commited each year with rocket launchers?

How many criminals pass background checks, yet still have guns?

Most buy in private sale with no background check.

No. You are wrong again....most criminals get their guns from people who can pass criminal background checks....that guy then illegally sells the gun to the criminal....that is 40% of the illegal gun market...and they aren't going to do a background check to sell those guns, they know they are breaking the law....the next 40% comes from stealing the guns....the other 20 I'll have to look up.......

And again...background checks only work for law abiding citizens who voluntarily submit to them....criminals don't, and get their guns faster than the law abiding gun owner...

you seem to be pushing for registration. i'm with you on that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While not for gun control, think I'd be ok with rpg-control.

which means you are for arms control.
nearly every reasonable person agrees that there is a limit to the arms an individual should have access to. setting that limit seems to be an issue.

The SCotUS, while not dealing in specifics, has shed significant light in this.

 

[ogibillm]

While not for gun control, think I'd be ok with rpg-control.

which means you are for arms control.
nearly every reasonable person agrees that there is a limit to the arms an individual should have access to. setting that limit seems to be an issue.

The SCotUS, while not dealing in specifics, has shed significant light in this.

agreed. but the line is still somewhat blurry between acceptable regulations and those that aren't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While not for gun control, think I'd be ok with rpg-control.

which means you are for arms control.
nearly every reasonable person agrees that there is a limit to the arms an individual should have access to. setting that limit seems to be an issue.

The SCotUS, while not dealing in specifics, has shed significant light in this.

agreed. but the line is still somewhat blurry between acceptable regulations and those that aren't.

According to the court, the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.
Like all such rights, restrictions are reviewed under strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
So... the bar for "acceptable regulation" is pretty high, and rightly so.

 

[BULLDOG]

So....so much for background checks, gun registration, magazine limits, and licensing law abiding citizens...since they are the ones obeying gun laws it is pointless.....

However...these two thugs probably couldn't pass background checks, and aren't required to register guns because the supreme court says felons do not have to register illegal guns, and something tells me they would not obey magazine limit laws.....

Oh...and they had a rocket propelled grenade launcher.....and you know what....as probable felons....they can't have those either....

Rocket-launcher attack on Fla. police department thwarted - NY Daily News

Authorities say a plot to attack a central Florida police department with a rocket launcher has been foiled, just days before the onslaught was slated to go down.


Monday's planned attack on the Eustis Police Department was thwarted after the arrest of two men and discovery of more than 20 weapons, drugs and bullet proof vests in a shed, the Marion County Sheriff's Office said Monday.


Authorities credited Saturday's arrests to a tip about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher being stored inside a shed.


Capt. James Pogue said a search of that shed recovered 22 firearms, containers of black powder, more than a pound of marijuana, both powdered and crack cocaine, prescription pills, scales, two bulletproof vests and other drugs, the Orlando Sentinel reported.


Eustis Police Chief Fred Cobb was alerted to the plotted attack on Friday and described himself as "blindsided" by its news, MyNews13 reported.


The following day Christopher Conger, 32, and Jeremy Robertson, 29, were arrested and hit with a number of charges. Those include possession of cocaine with intent to sell, grand theft of a firearm, using or displaying a firearm during a felony and wearing a bulletproof vest during certain offenses.


So....no licensing required...these guys were caught with guns...lock them up....no background checks required, they were caught with illegal guns...lock them up....

See....the best gun control laws = lock up criminals who get caught with guns....

Then you don't have to bother law abiding citizens....but of course...that is who you actually want to bother isn't it......

How many crimes commited each year with rocket launchers?

Since you missed the point, rocket launchers are illegal for all citizens, not just felons and apparently these two thugs were able to get them easily......with background check laws firmly in place right now........and considering you can't buy them at the local gun store.....

This whole thread is ridiculous. With your reasoning, if a person intentionally ran over a group of kids, that would mean all traffic laws are a waste of time because they didn't stop that one criminal act. You are either intentionally obtuse or stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This whole thread is ridiculous. With your reasoning, if a person intentionally ran over a group of kids, that would mean all traffic laws are a waste of time because they didn't stop that one criminal act. You are either intentionally obtuse or stupid.

Speaking of intentionally obtuse or stupid...
It is impossible to prevent someone from breaking a law by enacting another law; any such law to that effect is nonsensical.
This applies to background checks, it does not apply to traffic laws.

 

[ogibillm]

This whole thread is ridiculous. With your reasoning, if a person intentionally ran over a group of kids, that would mean all traffic laws are a waste of time because they didn't stop that one criminal act. You are either intentionally obtuse or stupid.

Speaking of intentionally obtuse or stupid...
It is impossible to prevent someone from breaking a law by enacting another law; any such law to that effect is nonsensical.
This applies to background checks, it does not apply to traffic laws.

what something like a background check does is prevent someone likely to break a law from being in that position

sort of like a the laws that remove a person's license to drive for say a dui.

 

[M14 Shooter]

what something like a background check does is prevent someone likely to break a law from being in that position

I don't understand...?

sort of like a the laws that remove a person's license to drive for say a dui.

Different thing.
What you describe here is akin to felons, etc, losing their right to arms upon conviction..
Background checks are then akin to forcing everyone to blow into a breathalizer every time they start their car.

 

[BULLDOG]

This whole thread is ridiculous. With your reasoning, if a person intentionally ran over a group of kids, that would mean all traffic laws are a waste of time because they didn't stop that one criminal act. You are either intentionally obtuse or stupid.

Speaking of intentionally obtuse or stupid...
It is impossible to prevent someone from breaking a law by enacting another law; any such law to that effect is nonsensical.
This applies to background checks, it does not apply to traffic laws.

Of course it applies to traffic laws. It applies to every law. A law against driving drunk doesn't stop DWI's. Laws against theft doesn't stop all theft. Using your logic, we should eliminate all laws because they don't work. Again, that's just stupid.

 

[BULLDOG]

what something like a background check does is prevent someone likely to break a law from being in that position

I don't understand...?

sort of like a the laws that remove a person's license to drive for say a dui.

Different thing.
What you describe here is akin to felons, etc, losing their right to arms upon conviction..
Background checks are then akin to forcing everyone to blow into a breathalizer every time they start their car.

No, it's more akin to having to pass a driving test to make sure you are qualified to drive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This whole thread is ridiculous. With your reasoning, if a person intentionally ran over a group of kids, that would mean all traffic laws are a waste of time because they didn't stop that one criminal act. You are either intentionally obtuse or stupid.

Speaking of intentionally obtuse or stupid...
It is impossible to prevent someone from breaking a law by enacting another law; any such law to that effect is nonsensical.
This applies to background checks, it does not apply to traffic laws.

Of course it applies to traffic laws.

It does not.
Traffic laws are not laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from braking other laws.
Background checks are.
There's the difference, and illustrates why your "under your logic we might as well repeal all traffic laws" position is unsound,

 

[Mertex]

You guys keep going on and on about 'law abiding citizens.' They are only law abiding until the kill someone with their gun. Which happens often a regularly.

And so....?
We should treat every gun owner as a criminal because they might commit a crime?
How about we treat you as a whore because you might turn tricks?

You do realize that you are emulating those fundamentalist, extremist Muslims you hate so much by considering every woman a potential whore? You really aren't any better than those men.

I see you missed the point.
Likely, you did this deliberately, so you need not address it.

You didn't make any point except to insult all women. There is no logical analogous situation between women and gun use. You showed yourself to be a misogynist by trying to make such an analogy. There was no point to miss except that you have zero respect for women. The point you thought you were making failed completely because it consists of a fallacy, a false analogy.

So typical of the right-wing men. Then they deny that they hate women. I guess you have to act like a Stepford wife in order to be respected in their eyes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

what something like a background check does is prevent someone likely to break a law from being in that position

I don't understand...?

sort of like a the laws that remove a person's license to drive for say a dui.

Different thing.
What you describe here is akin to felons, etc, losing their right to arms upon conviction..
Background checks are then akin to forcing everyone to blow into a breathalizer every time they start their car.

No, it's more akin to having to pass a driving test to make sure you are qualified to drive.

Not even close. Do try again.

 

[BULLDOG]

This whole thread is ridiculous. With your reasoning, if a person intentionally ran over a group of kids, that would mean all traffic laws are a waste of time because they didn't stop that one criminal act. You are either intentionally obtuse or stupid.

Speaking of intentionally obtuse or stupid...
It is impossible to prevent someone from breaking a law by enacting another law; any such law to that effect is nonsensical.
This applies to background checks, it does not apply to traffic laws.

Of course it applies to traffic laws.

It does not.
Traffic laws are not laws enacted with the intent to prevent people from braking other laws.
Background checks are.
There's the difference, and illustrates why your "under your logic we might as well repeal all traffic laws" position is unsound,

Just shut up. Your entire thread is stupid.

 

[Esmeralda]

So....so much for background checks, gun registration, magazine limits, and licensing law abiding citizens...since they are the ones obeying gun laws it is pointless.....

However...these two thugs probably couldn't pass background checks, and aren't required to register guns because the supreme court says felons do not have to register illegal guns, and something tells me they would not obey magazine limit laws.....

Oh...and they had a rocket propelled grenade launcher.....and you know what....as probable felons....they can't have those either....

Rocket-launcher attack on Fla. police department thwarted - NY Daily News

Authorities say a plot to attack a central Florida police department with a rocket launcher has been foiled, just days before the onslaught was slated to go down.


Monday's planned attack on the Eustis Police Department was thwarted after the arrest of two men and discovery of more than 20 weapons, drugs and bullet proof vests in a shed, the Marion County Sheriff's Office said Monday.


Authorities credited Saturday's arrests to a tip about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher being stored inside a shed.


Capt. James Pogue said a search of that shed recovered 22 firearms, containers of black powder, more than a pound of marijuana, both powdered and crack cocaine, prescription pills, scales, two bulletproof vests and other drugs, the Orlando Sentinel reported.


Eustis Police Chief Fred Cobb was alerted to the plotted attack on Friday and described himself as "blindsided" by its news, MyNews13 reported.


The following day Christopher Conger, 32, and Jeremy Robertson, 29, were arrested and hit with a number of charges. Those include possession of cocaine with intent to sell, grand theft of a firearm, using or displaying a firearm during a felony and wearing a bulletproof vest during certain offenses.


So....no licensing required...these guys were caught with guns...lock them up....no background checks required, they were caught with illegal guns...lock them up....

See....the best gun control laws = lock up criminals who get caught with guns....

Then you don't have to bother law abiding citizens....but of course...that is who you actually want to bother isn't it......

How is these guys getting caught before committing the crime an example of them not working? Sorry but this is a great example of them working. Crime did not occur.

Brain...are you dense.....background checks didn't catch these guys, gun registration didn't catch these guys, magazine limits didn't catch these guys, licensing gun owners didn't catch these guys......

None of what you want stopped these guys from getting weapons and a rocket launcher with rockets...or drugs........so no....your gun laws didn't work

My gun laws...the ones that state a felon can't have a gun....is going to work like a charm....they have been arrested....so it worked...and there was no need for "unviersal" background checks, licensing or registration.........

your ideas are stupid.....and had no role in stopping these guys....

Again the laws worked and no crime was commited.

Your comparisons to guns are comical.

Okay brain...you are being deliberately stupid.....these guys did not pass a background check...they did not undergo a background check...so that law was unnecessary to their capture....they are not required to register their illegal guns if they are felons, the Supreme Court said so, so any registration law would not have caught them.....and since they are probably felons the could not get licensed to own any guns, let alone a rocket launcher so licensing did not catch them...

Again....try to be smarter than you post......

LOL You're funny. You are so funny, Because you cannot grasp a concept, you say the other person is

You guys keep going on and on about 'law abiding citizens.' They are only law abiding until the kill someone with their gun. Which happens often a regularly.

And so....?
We should treat every gun owner as a criminal because they might commit a crime?
How about we treat you as a whore because you might turn tricks?

You do realize that you are emulating those fundamentalist, extremist Muslims you hate so much by considering every woman a potential whore? You really aren't any better than those men.

I see you missed the point.
Likely, you did this deliberately, so you need not address it.

You didn't make any point except to insult all women. There is no logical analogous situation between women and gun use. You showed yourself to be a misogynist by trying to make such an analogy. There was no point to miss except that you have zero respect for women. The point you thought you were making failed completely because it consists of a fallacy, a false analogy.

Sweety, you did miss the point......he didn't say all women are whores...he said that you want to treat law abiding citizens as if they are criminals before they commit a crime...therefore that would be like treating all women like whores because at some future time they might turn tricks....

You are an absolute moron.

 

[BULLDOG]

what something like a background check does is prevent someone likely to break a law from being in that position

I don't understand...?

sort of like a the laws that remove a person's license to drive for say a dui.

Different thing.
What you describe here is akin to felons, etc, losing their right to arms upon conviction..
Background checks are then akin to forcing everyone to blow into a breathalizer every time they start their car.

No, it's more akin to having to pass a driving test to make sure you are qualified to drive.

Not even close. Do try again.

With the bizarre reasoning you have used so far, I doubt if you are even able to tell that it is exactly the same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just shut up. Your entire thread is stupid.

Says the petulant child, when he runs out of meaningful things to say.

 

[M14 Shooter]

what something like a background check does is prevent someone likely to break a law from being in that position

I don't understand...?

sort of like a the laws that remove a person's license to drive for say a dui.

Different thing.
What you describe here is akin to felons, etc, losing their right to arms upon conviction..
Background checks are then akin to forcing everyone to blow into a breathalizer every time they start their car.

No, it's more akin to having to pass a driving test to make sure you are qualified to drive.

Not even close. Do try again.

With the bizarre reasoning you have used so far, I doubt if you are even able to tell that it is exactly the same.

You clearly do not understand this issue, at any level.
Run along now.