Leftists Now Clamoring To Get Guns And Finding Out It's Not That Easy

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons; no one firearm regulatory measure is a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – including UBCs, and no one is presenting them as such.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I understand that you like to pretend that you are Rambo. I am just trying to encourage you to buy a cape and pretend to be Batman, instead. He doesn't carry a gun.

Your snide little quips still don't make my possessions any of your business.

If you are a convicted felon, buying a firearm from a private party without a background check, I intend to make it my business with my vote.

A convicted felon buying a firearm - in ANY manner - is already a crime. Derp.

Your problem is that you confuse your right to own a firearm, with my belief that the SOB that sold one to a convicted felon without a background check should be criminalized. I know that is a stretch for you to conceive, but if you sleep on it overnight, you might grasp it.

"with my belief that the SOB that sold one to a convicted felon without a background check should be criminalized"

They already are you stupid ass.

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

How many more things are you going to suggest that we already have laws for, genius?

Sorry, Gomer, private sales of firearm's do not fall into any of those definitions of illegal transactions. Turn off your AM radio.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

And you idjits can't accept we change what we can change. You seem to believe that some magical Gun Fairy is going to cure everything. Let's start your narrative with "'Once Upon a Time" or "And there I was"

Take your hopey-changey feelgood bullshit and shove it up your ass. There have always been criminals, there will always be criminals. The real "idjits" are the dumb shits like you who think you stop criminality by restricting and/or disarming the honorable. Nowhere has this ever been the case in all of recorded history but you cling to this completely asinine notion like flies to shit.

Think about what you typed in the second sentence. That is the only part of your response that makes any sense. There have always been Criminals and always will be Criminals. And More Guns don't make fewer criminals or deter crimes at all. In fact, all studies state that more or less guns have absolutely no change in that. But what it does change is making the average American safer even if from him or herself. Common Sense Gun Regs are designed to do just that. They are not designed for the hardened criminal, they are designed for the average person and the person who "May" decide to do a felonious act out of anger, mental disability or pressure. You want to control the Criminal, good F###ing luck with that.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons; no one firearm regulatory measure is a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – including UBCs, and no one is presenting them as such.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

Rush told them that there is already a federal law prohibiting private sale of firearms, therefore, the debate is settled.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

And you idjits can't accept we change what we can change. You seem to believe that some magical Gun Fairy is going to cure everything. Let's start your narrative with "'Once Upon a Time" or "And there I was"

Take your hopey-changey feelgood bullshit and shove it up your ass. There have always been criminals, there will always be criminals. The real "idjits" are the dumb shits like you who think you stop criminality by restricting and/or disarming the honorable. Nowhere has this ever been the case in all of recorded history but you cling to this completely asinine notion like flies to shit.

Think about what you typed in the second sentence. That is the only part of your response that makes any sense. There have always been Criminals and always will be Criminals. And More Guns don't make fewer criminals or deter crimes at all. In fact, all studies state that more or less guns have absolutely no change in that. But what it does change is making the average American safer even if from him or herself. Common Sense Gun Regs are designed to do just that. They are not designed for the hardened criminal, they are designed for the average person and the person who "May" decide to do a felonious act out of anger, mental disability or pressure. You want to control the Criminal, good F###ing luck with that.

Sure, by the NRA argument, more guns make for a safer America. What is confusing is that there are more guns per person in America than any other country, and it is the one country that one is most likely to be killed by a firearm.

 

[2aguy]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons; no one firearm regulatory measure is a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – including UBCs, and no one is presenting them as such.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons

Current, Federally mandated Background Checks do not stop criminals...at all.....they use Straw Buyers, who can pass any background check, including any check used for a private sale......or they steal the guns.......

You don't know what you are talking about....

Universal Background Checks are merely the pretext the anti-gunners like yourself will use to demand universal gun registration...which is the goal......

As to being Constitutional.......I think a case can and should be made that they violate your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination and against the "Right to Privacy," that you asshats demand for abortions......

 

[2aguy]

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

And you idjits can't accept we change what we can change. You seem to believe that some magical Gun Fairy is going to cure everything. Let's start your narrative with "'Once Upon a Time" or "And there I was"

Take your hopey-changey feelgood bullshit and shove it up your ass. There have always been criminals, there will always be criminals. The real "idjits" are the dumb shits like you who think you stop criminality by restricting and/or disarming the honorable. Nowhere has this ever been the case in all of recorded history but you cling to this completely asinine notion like flies to shit.

Think about what you typed in the second sentence. That is the only part of your response that makes any sense. There have always been Criminals and always will be Criminals. And More Guns don't make fewer criminals or deter crimes at all. In fact, all studies state that more or less guns have absolutely no change in that. But what it does change is making the average American safer even if from him or herself. Common Sense Gun Regs are designed to do just that. They are not designed for the hardened criminal, they are designed for the average person and the person who "May" decide to do a felonious act out of anger, mental disability or pressure. You want to control the Criminal, good F###ing luck with that.

Sure, by the NRA argument, more guns make for a safer America. What is confusing is that there are more guns per person in America than any other country, and it is the one country that one is most likely to be killed by a firearm.

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns, but now carry them for self defense, our gun murder rate went down 49%...

With what you believe....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own but now carry guns our gun crime rate went down 75%....

With what you believe,.....how do you explain that?

In the U.S. as more Americans not only own guns but carry them for self defense, our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

With what you believe, how do you explain that?


Nothing you believe about guns is supported by actual facts, the truth, or reality on the ground......how do you justify your believes beyond simply not liking guns?

------
Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

 

[2aguy]

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

And you idjits can't accept we change what we can change. You seem to believe that some magical Gun Fairy is going to cure everything. Let's start your narrative with "'Once Upon a Time" or "And there I was"

Take your hopey-changey feelgood bullshit and shove it up your ass. There have always been criminals, there will always be criminals. The real "idjits" are the dumb shits like you who think you stop criminality by restricting and/or disarming the honorable. Nowhere has this ever been the case in all of recorded history but you cling to this completely asinine notion like flies to shit.

Think about what you typed in the second sentence. That is the only part of your response that makes any sense. There have always been Criminals and always will be Criminals. And More Guns don't make fewer criminals or deter crimes at all. In fact, all studies state that more or less guns have absolutely no change in that. But what it does change is making the average American safer even if from him or herself. Common Sense Gun Regs are designed to do just that. They are not designed for the hardened criminal, they are designed for the average person and the person who "May" decide to do a felonious act out of anger, mental disability or pressure. You want to control the Criminal, good F###ing luck with that.

Sure, by the NRA argument, more guns make for a safer America. What is confusing is that there are more guns per person in America than any other country, and it is the one country that one is most likely to be killed by a firearm.

Wrong....where criminals will use guns to kill other criminals because the democrat party policies keep letting repeat, known, gun offenders out of prison over and over again.....

As an Example......D.C.:

They have had an explosion in concealed carry permits there....and the violent crime rate went down 34%....

The criminal murder rate? Went up....

How do you explain that....you doofus...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...3415dc-6468-11ea-845d-e35b0234b136_story.html

More than 4,000 people have obtained gun permits from the D.C. police department to carry loaded, concealed firearms on the streets of the nation’s capital, according to data released this month.
----

In the months after the court decision, the police department began approving hundreds of permits. Before the decision, there were only 123 active licenses, and D.C. police denied 77 percent of applicants for failing to provide the required “good reason.”

D.C. police have since signed off on 4,808 permits, according to data the department provided March 5 to Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who chairs the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety. Permits expire after two years, and there are currently 4,147 active license-holders, according to the department’s records division.
------

The District’s police chief has made illegal firearms in the city a top priority for cutting crime. While overall violent crime has dropped 34 percent in D.C. since 2015, homicides fueled by illegal firearms continues to be a problem. The District finished 2019 with a decade high 166 homicides and is on a similar pace this year. Of the homicides in D.C. last year, police said 135 of them were committed with firearms.

But what is driving their gun murder rate....you know, criminals shooting other criminals?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...30d87c-c4f5-11e9-b72f-b31dfaa77212_story.html

Last year, the District of Columbia Sentencing Commission voted to decrease sentences for felons convicted of illegally possessing a gun in the District and to reduce the impact of prior felon-in-possession convictions on any future sentence an offender might incur. That’s right: decrease and reduce.
--------

D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham and U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu complained in a letter to The Post that sentencing changes will ensure that “repeat offenders who have committed gun crimes will be back on the street sooner . . . endangering our community.”
------
https://wtop.com/local/2017/06/ms-13-how-a-gang-was-revitalized-in-the-dc-area/



“The vast majority of their crimes are gang-on-gang,” inspired by the need to control territory and the crime-related revenue that comes from such control, Jay Lanham, a retired assistant chief of the Prince William County police and executive director of the Northern Virginia Gang Task Force, said.

The FBI agent who spoke to WTOP agreed.

“Any transgressions against the organization, real and/or perceived, become punishable by death.”

F

Gang related crime.....? Up 67%......


MS-13: How a deadly gang gained strength in the DC area | WTOP

Police: Gang-related crime up 67 percent in Montgomery County from last year

Montgomery County police looked at the data from the first six months of this year to the first half of 2017 and found violent gang-related crime is up 67 percent, gang-related robberies are up 36 percent while gang-related assaults are up 43 percent.
----
Who are the gangs preying on? Montgomery County Police Assistant Chief Marcus Jones said the victims of these crimes are immigrants themselves, but not always.

 

[CWayne]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Give it a rest. It's easier right now to buy a gun and ammo than buying Toilet Paper.

Riiighht... because toilet paper costs hundreds of dollars and requires background checks & waiting periods.

Wrong again.

I bought a Brno Model 1 online – no 4473, no background check, no waiting period.

The seller and I agreed to the sale on a firearm message board. I met the seller in a hotel parking lot, we verified we were residents of the same state, I paid the agreed price, and took the rifle home.

So yes, one can just buy firearms online.

You arranged a meeting online. The sale was conducted offline. Are you really this stupid?

He also bought a rifle, not a handgun.

 

[2aguy]

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

And you idjits can't accept we change what we can change. You seem to believe that some magical Gun Fairy is going to cure everything. Let's start your narrative with "'Once Upon a Time" or "And there I was"

Take your hopey-changey feelgood bullshit and shove it up your ass. There have always been criminals, there will always be criminals. The real "idjits" are the dumb shits like you who think you stop criminality by restricting and/or disarming the honorable. Nowhere has this ever been the case in all of recorded history but you cling to this completely asinine notion like flies to shit.

Think about what you typed in the second sentence. That is the only part of your response that makes any sense. There have always been Criminals and always will be Criminals. And More Guns don't make fewer criminals or deter crimes at all. In fact, all studies state that more or less guns have absolutely no change in that. But what it does change is making the average American safer even if from him or herself. Common Sense Gun Regs are designed to do just that. They are not designed for the hardened criminal, they are designed for the average person and the person who "May" decide to do a felonious act out of anger, mental disability or pressure. You want to control the Criminal, good F###ing luck with that.

Sure, by the NRA argument, more guns make for a safer America. What is confusing is that there are more guns per person in America than any other country, and it is the one country that one is most likely to be killed by a firearm.

And, of course, you ignore the fact that according to the Centers for Disease Control.......Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives....from rape, robbery and murder.

 

[2aguy]

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

And you idjits can't accept we change what we can change. You seem to believe that some magical Gun Fairy is going to cure everything. Let's start your narrative with "'Once Upon a Time" or "And there I was"

Take your hopey-changey feelgood bullshit and shove it up your ass. There have always been criminals, there will always be criminals. The real "idjits" are the dumb shits like you who think you stop criminality by restricting and/or disarming the honorable. Nowhere has this ever been the case in all of recorded history but you cling to this completely asinine notion like flies to shit.

Think about what you typed in the second sentence. That is the only part of your response that makes any sense. There have always been Criminals and always will be Criminals. And More Guns don't make fewer criminals or deter crimes at all. In fact, all studies state that more or less guns have absolutely no change in that. But what it does change is making the average American safer even if from him or herself. Common Sense Gun Regs are designed to do just that. They are not designed for the hardened criminal, they are designed for the average person and the person who "May" decide to do a felonious act out of anger, mental disability or pressure. You want to control the Criminal, good F###ing luck with that.

Actual research says you don't know what you are talking about.......

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

===


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review




Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.



The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons

 

[satrebil]

Your snide little quips still don't make my possessions any of your business.

If you are a convicted felon, buying a firearm from a private party without a background check, I intend to make it my business with my vote.

A convicted felon buying a firearm - in ANY manner - is already a crime. Derp.

Your problem is that you confuse your right to own a firearm, with my belief that the SOB that sold one to a convicted felon without a background check should be criminalized. I know that is a stretch for you to conceive, but if you sleep on it overnight, you might grasp it.

"with my belief that the SOB that sold one to a convicted felon without a background check should be criminalized"

They already are you stupid ass.

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

How many more things are you going to suggest that we already have laws for, genius?

Sorry, Gomer, private sales of firearm's do not fall into any of those definitions of illegal transactions. Turn off your AM radio.

Yes they most certainly do you asshat:

(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
fugitive from justice;
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
alien—
United States; or
United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
[2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
United States, has renounced his citizenship;
intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
intimate partner or child; or
intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

But thanks for proving once again that a typical leftist has no fucking clue what he's talking about and can't even be bothered to read the relevant law when it's directly presented to him.

Christ you people are pathetic.

 

[satrebil]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons; no one firearm regulatory measure is a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – including UBCs, and no one is presenting them as such.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

You, by your own admission, did not subject yourself to a background check during a private sale.

You have NO room to talk, hypocrite. Piss off.

 

[Mac-7]

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

So you can shoot my eyes out at 100 yards?

thats impressive

but if your motivation is making America safer by limiting the gun rights of honest responsible citizens then you wont stop stop till all the guns are taken away

because the good people will be the first to be disarmed and the street thugs will be the last if they are ever disarmed at all

Sorry, we don't need you to go back into the room. We already passed the common sense gun regs. But you are free to keep screaming your lungs out if you wish.

You keep signing on for more

whats next on your agenda?

Nah, we are done until someone can figure out another weapon of war to inflict on the civilian population. But you go ahead and nash your teeth and yell your little heart out.

Maybe you think you are done

but the lib thundering herd has bigger ideas and where they go you are bound to follow

 

[Mac-7]

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

Don't let anyone tell you that you don't need a 100 round ammo drum. You might be attacked by a herd of angry moose.

You might be attacked by a herd of angry moose.

Or a gaggle of obama voters looking for some walking around money to tide them over till the welfare check comes in

If you bothered to check, more people voted for Rump receive those "Welfare Checks" than voted for Obama. And don't bother denying it. I guess Rump wants to make sure that his followers will keep right on following.

But that said, something has to be done and at least it's something for the workers for a change. That Trillion is going to be eaten up pretty damned fast. Of course, the tax payer will get what's left over AFTER the Corporations get theirs. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

Okay, you get your thousand. The Virus is said to peak in about 45 days. While the Corporations are bailed out, that thousand will be eaten up in only a couple of weeks and you are no better off than you were before. It's predicted that the peak will happen in about 45 days but the danger may not pass for at least 6 months. Care to tell me where the Feds and States are going to get the money to support the entire out of work population for 6 months? Again, this is neither a right nor wrong situation. And it's not a Rightee or Leftee situation. It just is.

I wonder if I can trade my ammo cans for TP?

If you bothered to check, more people voted for Rump receive those "Welfare Checks" than voted for Obama.

I think you are wrong

but who knows?

lets just stop sending the checks to all the non working but able bodied welfare bums

if you are right that’ll teach us not to mess with you

 

[Mac-7]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons; no one firearm regulatory measure is a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – including UBCs, and no one is presenting them as such.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

Pardon me for not knowing, but what is a UBC?

 

[Mac-7]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons; no one firearm regulatory measure is a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – including UBCs, and no one is presenting them as such.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

Rush told them that there is already a federal law prohibiting private sale of firearms, therefore, the debate is settled.

There is a law against operating as a gun dealer without a license

Thats why 3 individuals at a gun show in Ft Worth were arrested last week

But a private sale between two people should not be criminalized

 

[Mac-7]

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

And you idjits can't accept we change what we can change. You seem to believe that some magical Gun Fairy is going to cure everything. Let's start your narrative with "'Once Upon a Time" or "And there I was"

Take your hopey-changey feelgood bullshit and shove it up your ass. There have always been criminals, there will always be criminals. The real "idjits" are the dumb shits like you who think you stop criminality by restricting and/or disarming the honorable. Nowhere has this ever been the case in all of recorded history but you cling to this completely asinine notion like flies to shit.

Think about what you typed in the second sentence. That is the only part of your response that makes any sense. There have always been Criminals and always will be Criminals. And More Guns don't make fewer criminals or deter crimes at all. In fact, all studies state that more or less guns have absolutely no change in that. But what it does change is making the average American safer even if from him or herself. Common Sense Gun Regs are designed to do just that. They are not designed for the hardened criminal, they are designed for the average person and the person who "May" decide to do a felonious act out of anger, mental disability or pressure. You want to control the Criminal, good F###ing luck with that.

Sure, by the NRA argument, more guns make for a safer America. What is confusing is that there are more guns per person in America than any other country, and it is the one country that one is most likely to be killed by a firearm.

If an honest citizen owns more guns only criminals are less safe

if you want gun crimes to go down put gang bangers in jail and throw away the key

 

[Vandalshandle]

If you are a convicted felon, buying a firearm from a private party without a background check, I intend to make it my business with my vote.

A convicted felon buying a firearm - in ANY manner - is already a crime. Derp.

Your problem is that you confuse your right to own a firearm, with my belief that the SOB that sold one to a convicted felon without a background check should be criminalized. I know that is a stretch for you to conceive, but if you sleep on it overnight, you might grasp it.

"with my belief that the SOB that sold one to a convicted felon without a background check should be criminalized"

They already are you stupid ass.

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

How many more things are you going to suggest that we already have laws for, genius?

Sorry, Gomer, private sales of firearm's do not fall into any of those definitions of illegal transactions. Turn off your AM radio.

Yes they most certainly do you asshat:

(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
fugitive from justice;
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
alien—
United States; or
United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
[2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
United States, has renounced his citizenship;
intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
intimate partner or child; or
intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

But thanks for proving once again that a typical leftist has no fucking clue what he's talking about and can't even be bothered to read the relevant law when it's directly presented to him.

Christ you people are pathetic.

reading is not your forte', is it. Where does it say that the seller has to ASK if the buyer can legally buy a gun.

Bigly failure.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Do most anti gun nuts even know how to use a gun?

One thing needs to be addressed. If you are not a gunnutter then you must be an anti-gun idiot. That means if you want any form of firearms regulation like Universal Background Checks or limiting the number of rounds held in a weapon, or a few other things you MUST be an anti-gun idiot who doesn't own guns and doesn't know how to use them. I know a number of Ex and Retired Military that can shoot your eyes out at 100 yds without a scope and we have our own personal firearms and voted for our Common Sense Firearms Regulations that do work.

The only way to get decent common sense firearms regulations is to put the gunnutters in one room and padlock it and do the same with the anti-gun idiots in another room and not let them out until the laws have been discussed and enacted. Actually, the rooms will be quite small but, damned, they sure will be loud. I suggest you sound proof them to prevent any distraction until the job is done. Then you can let them out.

We have "common sense firearms regulations". Oodles of them.

The problem that morons like you have is you are utterly incapable of understanding the fact that CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK.

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons; no one firearm regulatory measure is a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – including UBCs, and no one is presenting them as such.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

Rush told them that there is already a federal law prohibiting private sale of firearms, therefore, the debate is settled.

There is a law against operating as a gun dealer without a license

Thats why 3 individuals at a gun show in Ft Worth were arrested last week

But a private sale between two people should not be criminalized

So, If I sell my Mosan Nagant high powered rifle to the guy down the street who uses it to kill his whole family, and bought it from me, because I don't require a background check that would have revealed that he was under a legal restraining order for threatening his wife's life, I should not be held partially responsible....