Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no such thing as a purist.
An assault weapons ban is just an absurd lie, deliberately intended as part of a total confiscation scheme of all weapons.
That is because there is nothing remotely unusual about the AR type of weapons that is about the only firearms made or sold any more. There is absolutely no reason at all to ban them, banning them would put almost all firearms manufacturers out of business, and it would make about 40 million people into criminals.

What you have to understand it that all weapons can be used as or considered assault weapons.
Historically that has included the blunderbuss or the sawed off shotgun of the Revolutionary war, the pair of revolvers of the Civil war cavalry units, the trench shot gun of WWI, the carbine of WWII, etc.
All of these weapons can easily be used to kill hundreds of people, and are technology hundreds of years old, that anyone can easily make themselves even.
The notion of attempting to ban anything dangerous in our modern technology is just insane.
It can not possibly be done.
Those proposing we try it anyway, have to be lying.
No one could be that stupid.
Obviously we instead have to fix what is making people so violent, like over population, future shock, lack of community, media hype, lack of job stability, etc.

Using your thought pattern, I bet you can't wait until Death Race 2020. Start sharpening up those hubcaps today.

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why exactly do you oppose universal background checks? You support state BG checks right?

Because they are utterly unenforceable without a national registry and I will never be in favor of a gun registry.

Not a single criminal who can't legally buy s gun now will be affected by universal background checks

Do you feel the same about our current BG check system? Or is that also useless and should be done away with?

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

I believe more focus needs to be on straw purchasers since the FBI statistics conclude most of the guns purchased illegally and used in a crime were through them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

 

[Slade3200]

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no such thing as a purist.
An assault weapons ban is just an absurd lie, deliberately intended as part of a total confiscation scheme of all weapons.
That is because there is nothing remotely unusual about the AR type of weapons that is about the only firearms made or sold any more. There is absolutely no reason at all to ban them, banning them would put almost all firearms manufacturers out of business, and it would make about 40 million people into criminals.

What you have to understand it that all weapons can be used as or considered assault weapons.
Historically that has included the blunderbuss or the sawed off shotgun of the Revolutionary war, the pair of revolvers of the Civil war cavalry units, the trench shot gun of WWI, the carbine of WWII, etc.
All of these weapons can easily be used to kill hundreds of people, and are technology hundreds of years old, that anyone can easily make themselves even.
The notion of attempting to ban anything dangerous in our modern technology is just insane.
It can not possibly be done.
Those proposing we try it anyway, have to be lying.
No one could be that stupid.
Obviously we instead have to fix what is making people so violent, like over population, future shock, lack of community, media hype, lack of job stability, etc.

Using your thought pattern, I bet you can't wait until Death Race 2020. Start sharpening up those hubcaps today.

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.
Someone with a pump shotgun can much more easily and quickly kill far more people than with a semi AR.
As far as magazine size goes, they are just sheet metal that any one can easily and quickly modify.
I probably still would not even mind a magazine size limit except that I already bought a couple of large ones, and do NOT intend to ever give them up.

You also are totally wrong about more guns being the answer.
The ONLY time you ever have a lot of collateral damage from people firing irresponsibly in a crowd is by the police.
Average citizens are extremely hesitant to fire at all, and have NEVER caused collateral damage that I know of.
But police to it constantly, like the time they shot Amadou Diallo 42 times, and he had committed no crime and had no weapon. Clearly the most important thing we MUST do is get armed police OFF the streets.

Clearly mass shootings are a suicide declaration, that can easily be stopped by the proper mental health access. Guns have nothing at all to do with the cause or the cure.

 

[Rigby5]

Because they are utterly unenforceable without a national registry and I will never be in favor of a gun registry.

Not a single criminal who can't legally buy s gun now will be affected by universal background checks

Do you feel the same about our current BG check system? Or is that also useless and should be done away with?

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

See, the tough part of your argument is you rightfully admit that background checks are useful but then oppose measures that would make them better and more effective because you are worried about giving an inch for the slippery slope. I understand your fears and mistrust in government. It that also shouldn’t completely close you off to doing things that you know will help.

No, background checks can not possibly ever be at all useful.
You can never tell if a person is about to become dangerous.
And those who already have a records are not going to be inconvenienced in the least by any puny background check law they are going to evade by paying a bit more, by going illegal.

 

[Slade3200]

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

The amount of revenue generated off taxing the drugs will more than pay for social services, rehab, education and community programs. You’re all good Ray. Check the box’

 

[Rigby5]

to put it bluntly, I don't trust the federal government they have been given to much power already and giving them the amount of information required to operate universal background checks it will be used and abused other than just preventing criminals from buying guns

I appreciate your honesty. You should stick to that argument. I think that most people have the same fears but then they get lost trying to argue that laws and regulations don’t work.

Sure laws can work, such as a law against murder can work to intimidate murderers.
But that is NOT what you are describing.
You are falsely claiming that a minor charge for illegal possession of a firearm will prevent people from committing mass murder and suicide. And clearly that is not just false, but irrational, and a deliberate lie.

I’m not claiming that. I’m saying a law preventing a pissed off high schooler from buying a machine gun is a good thing. A law not letting high risk people like felons and the mentally disturbed carry guns around is a good thing because if they get caught they get arrested. We also don’t facilitate access to the most dangerous weapons in the world through our legal commerce system, so we do checks to make sure responsible people are purchasing. That should be common sense.

High schoolers have not been able to buy a machine gun since the 1930s, and even back in the 1930s when it was easy for kids to buy a machine gun, mail order, for $27, there was absolutely no case of it every happening.
Accessibility of weapons has NEVER been a factor in determining if someone is going to commit mass murder or not.
The fact mass murders are happening now, shows that something ELSE is seriously wrong now, and needs to be fixed, desperately. What ever is wrong, like over population, future shock, lack of opportunity, disorientation from lack of communities, media over load, etc. MUST be fixed, and trying to instead cover up the symptoms, will only prevent it from being fixed.
What should be common sense is that when you have have massive systemic problems, that you fix the source of the problem. You do not instead decide to turn our once democratic republic into a concentration camp where the government dictates everything. Because when you defy the intent of the founders, and rely in mercenary police and military instead of a militia and citizen soldiers, the only possible result always has to be a draconian dictatorship.

It is a lie to claim that felons are a risk. About 40% of the Black population now is illegally denied the right to vote over drug related felony convictions. The federal government has no authority over things like drugs at all, and they should not be dictating rights like whether after their sentence is over, if they can vote, defend themselves, etc.

And high risk people obviously can not be allowed out on the street. The idea of instead trying to make the entire world nerf safe so that you can let just anyone run around and do what ever they want, is insane. The high risk people do NOT at all need firearms to murder millions of people. If for example at a school shooting, like Harris and Klebold, they have instead just gone into the basement and opened a gas pipe, they could have left a timer and departed. They would not even have been there when hundreds would have died. So they could have gone on doing it over and over. The fact they instead use firearm is because the media has show that firearms get the best coverage. And it is a good thing, because firearms are so loud that they sound the alarm, and prevent REALLY LARGE mass murders, like arson, explosives, poisons, etc., could easily do. For example, ricin is easily available, and all someone would have to do in order to kill millions, is to back flush ricin into the water inlet in any home, with a higher pressure pump. To think firearms are the main danger, or that one could make the whole world into a prison camp to prevent access to dangerous technology, is just insane. It is so irrational that I can only see it as a deliberate lie, intended on finding feeble justifications for deliberately changing this country from a democratic republic, into a prison camp.

I have lots more to say, but likely even this won't be read anyway.

High schoolers haven’t been able to buy machine guns because of laws restricting them to do so. Good and effective laws in my opinion. I bring up that scenario to again make my point that regulations help and are sensible. I keep hearing these arguments that guns shouldn’t be regulated or BG checks are useless, or criminals can get guns underground so no need to regulate commerce. That’s just BS. We’ve have very common sense laws in place they are effective and it is a very fair debate to evaluate if we should continue with regulations or deregulations.

Foolish thinking.
Clearly when high school students could easily and inexpensively buy machine guns, none wanted to.
The laws that protect children are the requirement of parential consent for any large purchase, and has nothing at all to do with gun laws. I don't mind there being laws preventing kids from buying guns, but it is foolish to claim they are effective. There is no way I can take that claim seriously, since kids have never tried to buy guns, and no one would likely ever have sold them one, regardless of what laws existed.

Regardless of whether we restrict or not, (regulate is the wrong word, since in law, the word "regulate" means to prevent restrictions), the federal government must not legislate any gun law at all. Clearly only states and municipalities can legally legislate restrictions,

 

[Slade3200]

Do you feel the same about our current BG check system? Or is that also useless and should be done away with?

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

See, the tough part of your argument is you rightfully admit that background checks are useful but then oppose measures that would make them better and more effective because you are worried about giving an inch for the slippery slope. I understand your fears and mistrust in government. It that also shouldn’t completely close you off to doing things that you know will help.

No, background checks can not possibly ever be at all useful.
You can never tell if a person is about to become dangerous.
And those who already have a records are not going to be inconvenienced in the least by any puny background check law they are going to evade by paying a bit more, by going illegal.

If they can never be useful then you support getting rid of them all together? Just allow anybody to walk into a store and buy any gun no questions asked? I’m guessing you don’t support banning guns either right? So throw some UZIs into the local 7-11 and let whomever buy whatever? Is that what you’re giving the green light to sir?

 

[Rigby5]

Do you feel the same about our current BG check system? Or is that also useless and should be done away with?

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

So you don't see a problem with changing our once democratic republic into a multi tiered society, where those convicted of illegal federal drug or gun laws, are no longer allowed to vote, defend themselves, etc.?
You don't mind the federal government violating the Bill of Rights and usurping state authority?

Convicted felons, which can include anyone bouncing a check for over $100, have to live in the most dangerous neighborhoods, and actually need a weapon for defense more than anyone else. But even though they are denied representation, we still tax them. Don't you find that taxation without representation, inherently illegal?

The whole Congress deliberately lied to us about Iraq WMD, and murdered over half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, with Shock and Awe. So why is it they are not prosecuted and held to the same standards?

When people commit crimes they forfeit their rights. When they are released they are still a risk to society and need to earn back the public trust which is why it makes sense to have probationary periods. Do you not believe in that?

No one can ever forfeit rights.
It is impossible.
But due to them committing crimes, you can punish them and then protect the guards by temporarily restricting rights, but never forfeit.
And being a risk is irrelevant.
Everyone is a risk.
If you want a restricted probationary period, that is fine.
But not permanent.

 

[Slade3200]

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

So you don't see a problem with changing our once democratic republic into a multi tiered society, where those convicted of illegal federal drug or gun laws, are no longer allowed to vote, defend themselves, etc.?
You don't mind the federal government violating the Bill of Rights and usurping state authority?

Convicted felons, which can include anyone bouncing a check for over $100, have to live in the most dangerous neighborhoods, and actually need a weapon for defense more than anyone else. But even though they are denied representation, we still tax them. Don't you find that taxation without representation, inherently illegal?

The whole Congress deliberately lied to us about Iraq WMD, and murdered over half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, with Shock and Awe. So why is it they are not prosecuted and held to the same standards?

When people commit crimes they forfeit their rights. When they are released they are still a risk to society and need to earn back the public trust which is why it makes sense to have probationary periods. Do you not believe in that?

No one can ever forfeit rights.
It is impossible.
But due to them committing crimes, you can punish them and then protect the guards by temporarily restricting rights, but never forfeit.
And being a risk is irrelevant.
Everyone is a risk.
If you want a restricted probationary period, that is fine.
But not permanent.

Haha. Ok restrict not forfeit. You win, good job!

 

[Rigby5]

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

 

[Rigby5]

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

See, the tough part of your argument is you rightfully admit that background checks are useful but then oppose measures that would make them better and more effective because you are worried about giving an inch for the slippery slope. I understand your fears and mistrust in government. It that also shouldn’t completely close you off to doing things that you know will help.

No, background checks can not possibly ever be at all useful.
You can never tell if a person is about to become dangerous.
And those who already have a records are not going to be inconvenienced in the least by any puny background check law they are going to evade by paying a bit more, by going illegal.

If they can never be useful then you support getting rid of them all together? Just allow anybody to walk into a store and buy any gun no questions asked? I’m guessing you don’t support banning guns either right? So throw some UZIs into the local 7-11 and let whomever buy whatever? Is that what you’re giving the green light to sir?

When someone is under age, you don't have to do a background check to see that the age on their ID is too young.
If you wanted to add a color or code to the ID to indicate they could not legally buy a firearm, I would not mind that either.
But there really is no need then for a background check. One should be pre-qualified, and not have to tell the BATF every time you are considering a gun purchase. The feds have no right to know what you are buying.
As far as Uzis, I could care less. Anyone can easily make almost any firearm full auto. There was a kit to make a bolt action rifle into a full auto machine gun back in WWI. Called the Pederson device. So it is an illusion to think everyone does not already have access to full auto.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

 

[Blues Man]

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

You really can't get addicted to pot.

 

[Rigby5]

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

I would totally disagree with my experience of drug heads. But before anybody would get my support on that, we would first have to eliminate any kind of social services to drug heads. Because people who are really Fd up on drugs can't work. All they do is sit in a room and stare out into space.

So do you think cutting off social services is going to help clean them up or push them to homelessness and crime?

No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.

Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.

In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.

Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Using your thought pattern, I bet you can't wait until Death Race 2020. Start sharpening up those hubcaps today.

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?

Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Using your thought pattern, I bet you can't wait until Death Race 2020. Start sharpening up those hubcaps today.

Death Race was a movie about needless deaths and violence.
Firearms are used 99% of the time for defense.
Otherwise police would not be armed.
And I trust average people WAY more than I trust police, and in fact, there are few police I trust at all.
The democratic republic is also worth some risk.
We do not want to trade some imagined safety for freedom.
Freedom always comes with some risks and it is a very worth while trade off I think.
Gun control accomplishes nothing except make honest people helpless in the face of crime or government corruption.
That essentially is both foolish and treason, at the same time.

Just keep sharpening those hubcaps. You may get your chance someday, Road Warrior.

What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.

Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.
Someone with a pump shotgun can much more easily and quickly kill far more people than with a semi AR.
As far as magazine size goes, they are just sheet metal that any one can easily and quickly modify.
I probably still would not even mind a magazine size limit except that I already bought a couple of large ones, and do NOT intend to ever give them up.

You also are totally wrong about more guns being the answer.
The ONLY time you ever have a lot of collateral damage from people firing irresponsibly in a crowd is by the police.
Average citizens are extremely hesitant to fire at all, and have NEVER caused collateral damage that I know of.
But police to it constantly, like the time they shot Amadou Diallo 42 times, and he had committed no crime and had no weapon. Clearly the most important thing we MUST do is get armed police OFF the streets.

Clearly mass shootings are a suicide declaration, that can easily be stopped by the proper mental health access. Guns have nothing at all to do with the cause or the cure.

And anyone can build a Nuclear Device in the Basement, right? Your logic fails in real life.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

See, the tough part of your argument is you rightfully admit that background checks are useful but then oppose measures that would make them better and more effective because you are worried about giving an inch for the slippery slope. I understand your fears and mistrust in government. It that also shouldn’t completely close you off to doing things that you know will help.

No, background checks can not possibly ever be at all useful.
You can never tell if a person is about to become dangerous.
And those who already have a records are not going to be inconvenienced in the least by any puny background check law they are going to evade by paying a bit more, by going illegal.

If they can never be useful then you support getting rid of them all together? Just allow anybody to walk into a store and buy any gun no questions asked? I’m guessing you don’t support banning guns either right? So throw some UZIs into the local 7-11 and let whomever buy whatever? Is that what you’re giving the green light to sir?

When someone is under age, you don't have to do a background check to see that the age on their ID is too young.
If you wanted to add a color or code to the ID to indicate they could not legally buy a firearm, I would not mind that either.
But there really is no need then for a background check. One should be pre-qualified, and not have to tell the BATF every time you are considering a gun purchase. The feds have no right to know what you are buying.
As far as Uzis, I could care less. Anyone can easily make almost any firearm full auto. There was a kit to make a bolt action rifle into a full auto machine gun back in WWI. Called the Pederson device. So it is an illusion to think everyone does not already have access to full auto.

Under the Red Flag Laws, you can be temporarily entered into a no buy list. But that only works if the community is using a Universal Background method. To give you an idea, in 2016, there were 27 Convicted Felons sent back to prison for trying to purchase firearms in Colorado. These were violent ex cons. Law Abiding Citizens with Guns DO NOT sell outside the law. So, if you do, then you are a criminal yourself and should be treated as such. When a violent convicted Convict applies for a background check, he's already flagged. And he's going back to prison. Out of over 600,000 background checks less than 130 were denied and 27 were convicted violent criminals. So don't tell me that they don't work. They do.