Gun Control question for liberals?

[BULLDOG]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

You are under no obligation to know either way. That is what the background check is for.

Answer the question

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check?

Because under current law, there is no legal reason why any individual seller should know or even care if the gun purchaser can legally own a gun. Hell. there is no legal reason why the seller should even know the purchaser's name, much less whether he can legally own a gun.

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check on him?

I'm not asking about selling to people I don't know.

If I own a bus company, and I know my brother is a pretty good driver, why does he have to take that commercial driving test before I can hire him?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

You are under no obligation to know either way. That is what the background check is for.

Answer the question

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check?

Because under current law, there is no legal reason why any individual seller should know or even care if the gun purchaser can legally own a gun. Hell. there is no legal reason why the seller should even know the purchaser's name, much less whether he can legally own a gun.

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check on him?

I'm not asking about selling to people I don't know.

If I own a bus company, and I know my brother is a pretty good driver, why does he have to take that commercial driving test before I can hire him?

Because being a commercial driver is a privilege, not a right?


Did I guess right?

.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future,

So, you must ban and confiscate to prevent anyone from deciding to become a criminal?

.

Again, why do you think I want to ban and confiscate guns? Just because gun nuts make that claim doesn't mean it's true, dumb ass. Gun nuts lie a lot.

Because it is the next logical step. When all the other measures DO NO WORK like we have been saying, the demand will be complete ban and confiscation.

Until you are willing to accept that there will be shootings, no matter what you do, you will continue to be disappointed and demand more until there is nothing left to do but ban and confiscate.

You may not recognize the logical progression. We do because we have seen it. Repeatedly.

.

Just like banning all guns was supposed to be the next step after electing a black president. You don't remember the claims? "Obama will definitely take your guns" was the crazy right wing claim. You were lying then, and you are telling the same lie now..

 

[Flash]

[Q


The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.

You are confused about this, aren't you Moon Bat?

Almost all of the recent mass shooters passed a background check and it didn't stop them from committing a crime.

Background checks are absolutely useless. Passing a stupid background check is absolutely no guarantee that a person won't commit a crime in the future.

Background checks are just like all stupid Liberal policies. They make the idiot Liberals feel good but they are useless.

Somebody looking to use a firearm for criminal purposes will always be able to get one regardless of the oppressive laws against law abiding citizens.

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future, dumb ass, but, if you determine they have committed crimes in the past, it is positive that they are more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

All these stupid gun laws do is oppress the Constitutional liberties of people that would never use the firearms for illegal purposes. They does nothing to stop the bad guys. Just look at the daily shootings in Chicago as an example. The strictest gun control laws in the country and there are more gun violence there than anyplace else. The assholes there don't give a shit about background checks.

Background checks never do anything to stop crime. They are a waste of time. Another dumb Libtard idea that fails.

The most oppressive thing about background checks is that it is the filthy government giving you permission to enjoy an individual right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. If you have to get permission from the government for a right in the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Right isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

No law can guarantee to stop crime, so using your logic, all laws are a waste of time. How long have you been an Anarchist?

We shouldn't have any gun laws because the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Do you know how to read? The Founding Fathers who established an individual Liberty to keep and bear arms were considered anarchist by the oppressive British government at the time. A government that wanted to prevent the colonist from bearing arms. Just like you stupid Liberals nowadays.

Last Tuesday I bought a Colt Model 1911 from a firearms dealer. He had to do a stupid background check. How is that background going to stop me from using the pistol in a crime? The background check sure doesn't stop other people. The shooter in Virginia passed a background check and it didn't stop him, did it? The Parkland shooter also. The Liberal asshole that shot up the Republican Congressman passed a background check as did the church shooter in Texas and the shooter in Las Vegas. Hell, even those filthy ass Muslims in California and in Orlando passed a background check.

Absolutely worthless. Dumb Libtard idea.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future,

So, you must ban and confiscate to prevent anyone from deciding to become a criminal?

.

Again, why do you think I want to ban and confiscate guns? Just because gun nuts make that claim doesn't mean it's true, dumb ass. Gun nuts lie a lot.

Because it is the next logical step. When all the other measures DO NO WORK like we have been saying, the demand will be complete ban and confiscation.

Until you are willing to accept that there will be shootings, no matter what you do, you will continue to be disappointed and demand more until there is nothing left to do but ban and confiscate.

You may not recognize the logical progression. We do because we have seen it. Repeatedly.

.

Just like banning all guns was supposed to be the next step after electing a black president. You don't remember the claims? "Obama will definitely take your guns" was the crazy right wing claim. You were lying then, and you are telling the same lie now..

Then, prove you are trustworthy.

Repeal the unconstitutional Hughes Amendment. Then we can talk.

Otherwise, the only reason the "Black President" didn't succeed is because he was stopped.

.

 

[Crepitus]

We shouldn't have any gun laws because the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This^ is what will lead to confiscation. The utter refusal to discuss reasonable limits and controls will eventually force an all or nothing situation and you gun-nuts will lose.

You really should reconsider your position, that time is coming closer every day.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

That is such a moronic argument.

By that logic we might as well repeal all laws from jaywalking on up.

No stop repeating that stupidity.

How many of the recent mass shooters passed the background check to purchase the firearms used in the killings? Every damn one of them you fucking moron.

The dozens of shootings every day in Chicago are done by thugs that couldn't pass a background check.

Several of the mass shooters should have been in Mental Hospitals.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This^ is what will lead to confiscation. The utter refusal to discuss reasonable limits and controls will eventually force an all or nothing situation and you gun-nuts will lose.

I disagree.

.

 

[2aguy]

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

You want them. You prove it.

Criminals do not obey laws and do not use weapons that can lead back to them, a.k.a. illegal weapons, that normal people do not buy. It is pointless to talk about this because you people refuse to understand how it works.

Straw purchases lead back to the last FFL purchase.

You just want to add more steps in the process to stop LEGAL purchases. Quit lying.

.

You want me to prove your point? Yep, you're nuts,

Ummmmm

You are the proponent of more restrictions. Not me. You prove your bullshit will work. Maybe you need to learn how the burden of proof works.

The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.

And you were shown.....you don't care what the actual answer is, you just know you need universal background checks so that when they don't work, you can then demand universal gun registration, which is what you actually want.

 

[2aguy]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Because you vote for candidates that openly campaign to confiscate guns?

If you notice, a lot of democrats refused to vote for Hillary.
They would have voted for Bernie Sanders however.
So what is the difference?
Bernie was not for an assault weapons ban like Hillary was.

It makes no difference which Democrat wins.
The guns will be confiscated.

Australia, the UK and Canada all prove this.

I thought the right said Obama would confiscate guns. Wrong again?

He appointed anti-gun judges to the very courts that are ignoring Heller and the rest of the 2nd Amendment rulings from the Supreme Court...he did this to protect obamacare, he didn't want to lose any democrats to anti-gun votes in congress....and he knows that if they pass anti-gun laws at the state and local level, the judges he appointed can declare them constituional...

 

[progressive hunter]

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

That is such a moronic argument.

By that logic we might as well repeal all laws from jaywalking on up.

No stop repeating that stupidity.

The thin is we literally have thousands state and federal of gun laws on the books but since we do not enforce them they are not effective.

So tell me how is any new law going to work better if we just throw it on the pile of laws we don't enforce now?

Every person who is arrested for illegally possessing any firearm is committing not only a state crime but also a federal crime and the federal crime will get you 5 years in prison the state time may vary but why don't we start by actually prosecuting people who illegally obtain, possess and use firearms as the law already allows before we throw more laws on the trash heap?

according to the 2nd amendment there is no such thing as illegal possession of a fire arm,,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

You want them. You prove it.

Criminals do not obey laws and do not use weapons that can lead back to them, a.k.a. illegal weapons, that normal people do not buy. It is pointless to talk about this because you people refuse to understand how it works.

Straw purchases lead back to the last FFL purchase.

You just want to add more steps in the process to stop LEGAL purchases. Quit lying.

.

You want me to prove your point? Yep, you're nuts,

Ummmmm

You are the proponent of more restrictions. Not me. You prove your bullshit will work. Maybe you need to learn how the burden of proof works.

The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.

And you were shown.....you don't care what the actual answer is, you just know you need universal background checks so that when they don't work, you can then demand universal gun registration, which is what you actually want.

..and when that doesn't work, it will be ban and confiscation....just like we have said.

.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

/—-/ Nor should he be held responsible any more than you would be if you sold your car to a drunk driver.

Well, now, the difference is that with a car, the state must register it, and they will not do that for an owner who is legally prohibited from driving. I would be perfectly at ease if the same restriction applied to guns.

/——/ And you should be held responsible if the sober guy you sold the car to uses it to commit a crime like vehicular homicide. You should get 20 years to life.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. The state is responsible to see that the guy I sold my car to can not register and drive it on a public street if he is prohibited to drive, not me. The same is true if somebody passes a background check on buying a firearm by faking it somehow. If firearms all had to be bought with a background check, or if all guns had to be registered, then the two situations would be the same, and the seller would be off the hook..

 

[2aguy]

We shouldn't have any gun laws because the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This^ is what will lead to confiscation. The utter refusal to discuss reasonable limits and controls will eventually force an all or nothing situation and you gun-nuts will lose.

You really should reconsider your position, that time is coming closer every day.

We have 20,000 gun laws at the local, state and federal level...yet you say we still don't have enough.

It is already against the law to use a gun to commit rape, robbery and murder. It is against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun.

The two statements above are all we need to stop criminals with guns.

The problem that you don't care about is democrat judges, politicians and prosecutors letting repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over until they actually commit murder.....then they give them a few years and let them out again......

That is the issue, and you don't care, because you want guns banned....and criminals murdering people is a way to expedite that process.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Having the right to go to the church of your choice without a license is the same as having the right to own a gun with a 30 round ammo drum? Creptitus, I think that KGB's train left the station without his baggage.

30 round magazines are not drums, dumbass. Aren't you supposed to be a man? Something's wrong with you, you dolt.

Oh, Crepitus is your buddy?

Lemme guess, you 2 snuggle up in a sleeping bag and read Das Kapital with a flashlight at night, amirite?

Snug as 2 fags in a bag and queer for each other.

More homoerotic fantasies from the right.

Why don't you guys just come out of the closet already?

Trump supporter bigot alert!

Marion just does that because he thinks it helps hide his own homosexual tendencies. He's very insecure.

I have decided to refer to him as "Sugarlips".

 

[Cellblock2429]

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

/—-/ Nor should he be held responsible any more than you would be if you sold your car to a drunk driver.

Well, now, the difference is that with a car, the state must register it, and they will not do that for an owner who is legally prohibited from driving. I would be perfectly at ease if the same restriction applied to guns.

/——/ And you should be held responsible if the sober guy you sold the car to uses it to commit a crime like vehicular homicide. You should get 20 years to life.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. The state is responsible to see that the guy I sold my car to can not register and drive it on a public street if he is prohibited to drive, not me. The same is true if somebody passes a background check on buying a firearm by faking it somehow. If firearms all had to be bought with a background check, or if all guns had to be registered, then the two situations would be the same, and the seller would be off the hook..

/-----/ " if he is prohibited to drive, not me."
And if the drunk driver has never been caught or the homicidal maniac has been getting away with it for years - the blood is on your hands - using your gun grabber logic.

 

[Defiant1]

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

/—-/ Nor should he be held responsible any more than you would be if you sold your car to a drunk driver.

Well, now, the difference is that with a car, the state must register it, and they will not do that for an owner who is legally prohibited from driving. I would be perfectly at ease if the same restriction applied to guns.

/——/ And you should be held responsible if the sober guy you sold the car to uses it to commit a crime like vehicular homicide. You should get 20 years to life.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. The state is responsible to see that the guy I sold my car to can not register and drive it on a public street if he is prohibited to drive, not me. The same is true if somebody passes a background check on buying a firearm by faking it somehow. If firearms all had to be bought with a background check, or if all guns had to be registered, then the two situations would be the same, and the seller would be off the hook..

Can't the guy buy your car and keep it on his own property without the state's interference?

 

[2aguy]

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

/—-/ Nor should he be held responsible any more than you would be if you sold your car to a drunk driver.

Well, now, the difference is that with a car, the state must register it, and they will not do that for an owner who is legally prohibited from driving. I would be perfectly at ease if the same restriction applied to guns.

/——/ And you should be held responsible if the sober guy you sold the car to uses it to commit a crime like vehicular homicide. You should get 20 years to life.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. The state is responsible to see that the guy I sold my car to can not register and drive it on a public street if he is prohibited to drive, not me. The same is true if somebody passes a background check on buying a firearm by faking it somehow. If firearms all had to be bought with a background check, or if all guns had to be registered, then the two situations would be the same, and the seller would be off the hook..

Background checks do nothing to stop criminals, or mass shooters.....we have shown you this over and over again.

Gun registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, you have been shown this over and over again.

You want both because universal background checks, when they fail to stop criminals and mass shooters, will allow you to demand universal gun registration....which is the true goal, and what you really want. That way, when you get power, you can ban and confiscate guns without the owners hiding them.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

/—-/ Nor should he be held responsible any more than you would be if you sold your car to a drunk driver.

Well, now, the difference is that with a car, the state must register it, and they will not do that for an owner who is legally prohibited from driving. I would be perfectly at ease if the same restriction applied to guns.

/——/ And you should be held responsible if the sober guy you sold the car to uses it to commit a crime like vehicular homicide. You should get 20 years to life.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. The state is responsible to see that the guy I sold my car to can not register and drive it on a public street if he is prohibited to drive, not me. The same is true if somebody passes a background check on buying a firearm by faking it somehow. If firearms all had to be bought with a background check, or if all guns had to be registered, then the two situations would be the same, and the seller would be off the hook..

/-----/ " if he is prohibited to drive, not me."
And if the drunk driver has never been caught or the homicidal maniac has been getting away with it for years - the blood is on your hands - using your gun grabber logic.

It is clear that the whole concept of licensing drivers, and cars, vs licensing firearm ownership and sales is a concept that is way too high for your pay grade.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

/—-/ Nor should he be held responsible any more than you would be if you sold your car to a drunk driver.

Well, now, the difference is that with a car, the state must register it, and they will not do that for an owner who is legally prohibited from driving. I would be perfectly at ease if the same restriction applied to guns.

/——/ And you should be held responsible if the sober guy you sold the car to uses it to commit a crime like vehicular homicide. You should get 20 years to life.

You keep comparing apples to oranges. The state is responsible to see that the guy I sold my car to can not register and drive it on a public street if he is prohibited to drive, not me. The same is true if somebody passes a background check on buying a firearm by faking it somehow. If firearms all had to be bought with a background check, or if all guns had to be registered, then the two situations would be the same, and the seller would be off the hook..

Can't the guy buy your car and keep it on his own property without the state's interference?

Yes he can, and it is nobody responsibility but his as to the damage that he causes there. This is why my post included the words, "public street".