Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[M14 Shooter]

The innocent and law abiding responsible citizens like me can buy guns whatever and whenever I want here in U.S. no one can stop me...BUT from what I'm understanding from gun nuts is arm ALL people. Am I correct?

I dont understand thr question. Please rephrase.

 

[charwin95]

Your comparison is funny and just plain egregious. The only reason Honduras is such a crime country is because of high poverty compared to Switzerland. Honduras is flooded with guns. Law abiding Honduran and criminals have the same resources in acquiring unlawful firearms. I witness a tourist bus with 2 heavily armed guards are getting robbed because they fear of other people getting killed during fire fight. So it's easier to give up your wallet than to give up several lives.

So your answer is that of course the crime rate is lower in Switzerland because Switzerland is white and European and Honduras is not?

You ignore the simple fact that Switzerlands gun ownership is way beyond anything gun grabbing fascists like yourself would ever agree to and yet they have annually lower crime rates than the US.

In Honduras you do not have guns legally and so the use of said weapons to defend yourself invites investigation, charges and conviction with a trip to Honduras thug run prisons.

And any group of guard willing to let everyone on a bus get robbed instead of defending the passengers are guards that are a waste of money. Kill the god damned robbers and you don't have a problem, everyone knows that.

I never mentioned about whites or any color but I mentioned poverty which you failed to recognize. Guards defending such duties has been killed and thugs took their guns. Actually they took care of the guards before the robbery. Last week several tourist was kidnapped in the southern part of the Philippines (Google) which are heavily guarded but did not have chances of protecting their guests.
Yes Honduran cannot obtain arms legally but it's flooded with guns. When I traveled to Tecugicalpa I do not have problem buying 2 or 3 hand guns in the streets in less than 30 minutes. It's worst in El Salvador.
In Switzerland most of the people have jobs or rich. Unemployment is around 3 percent. So robbing, holdup, carjacking, home invasions, gangs, drug cartels is low not because of guns. In Honduras or South American countries which mostly are poor and crimes are high because of poverty not because of guns. Have you traveled to South American countries to witness these kind of travesty?

Which is why no one should try to ban guns. The only result is that criminals and the government have all the guns and the innocent have to dodge the bullets.

The innocent and law abiding responsible citizens like me can buy guns whatever and whenever I want here in U.S. no one can stop me...BUT from what I'm understanding from gun nuts is arm ALL people. Am I correct?

No, there are implied limits which are; 1. the person is not a felon, and 2. the person is not criminally insane.

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

 

[LOki]

So your answer is that of course the crime rate is lower in Switzerland because Switzerland is white and European and Honduras is not?

You ignore the simple fact that Switzerlands gun ownership is way beyond anything gun grabbing fascists like yourself would ever agree to and yet they have annually lower crime rates than the US.

In Honduras you do not have guns legally and so the use of said weapons to defend yourself invites investigation, charges and conviction with a trip to Honduras thug run prisons.

And any group of guard willing to let everyone on a bus get robbed instead of defending the passengers are guards that are a waste of money. Kill the god damned robbers and you don't have a problem, everyone knows that.

I never mentioned about whites or any color but I mentioned poverty which you failed to recognize. Guards defending such duties has been killed and thugs took their guns. Actually they took care of the guards before the robbery. Last week several tourist was kidnapped in the southern part of the Philippines (Google) which are heavily guarded but did not have chances of protecting their guests.
Yes Honduran cannot obtain arms legally but it's flooded with guns. When I traveled to Tecugicalpa I do not have problem buying 2 or 3 hand guns in the streets in less than 30 minutes. It's worst in El Salvador.
In Switzerland most of the people have jobs or rich. Unemployment is around 3 percent. So robbing, holdup, carjacking, home invasions, gangs, drug cartels is low not because of guns. In Honduras or South American countries which mostly are poor and crimes are high because of poverty not because of guns. Have you traveled to South American countries to witness these kind of travesty?

Which is why no one should try to ban guns. The only result is that criminals and the government have all the guns and the innocent have to dodge the bullets.

The innocent and law abiding responsible citizens like me can buy guns whatever and whenever I want here in U.S. no one can stop me...BUT from what I'm understanding from gun nuts is arm ALL people. Am I correct?

No, there are implied limits which are; 1. the person is not a felon, and 2. the person is not criminally insane.

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

 

[charwin95]

I never mentioned about whites or any color but I mentioned poverty which you failed to recognize. Guards defending such duties has been killed and thugs took their guns. Actually they took care of the guards before the robbery. Last week several tourist was kidnapped in the southern part of the Philippines (Google) which are heavily guarded but did not have chances of protecting their guests.
Yes Honduran cannot obtain arms legally but it's flooded with guns. When I traveled to Tecugicalpa I do not have problem buying 2 or 3 hand guns in the streets in less than 30 minutes. It's worst in El Salvador.
In Switzerland most of the people have jobs or rich. Unemployment is around 3 percent. So robbing, holdup, carjacking, home invasions, gangs, drug cartels is low not because of guns. In Honduras or South American countries which mostly are poor and crimes are high because of poverty not because of guns. Have you traveled to South American countries to witness these kind of travesty?

Which is why no one should try to ban guns. The only result is that criminals and the government have all the guns and the innocent have to dodge the bullets.

The innocent and law abiding responsible citizens like me can buy guns whatever and whenever I want here in U.S. no one can stop me...BUT from what I'm understanding from gun nuts is arm ALL people. Am I correct?

No, there are implied limits which are; 1. the person is not a felon, and 2. the person is not criminally insane.

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it? Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess? Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.
I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

 

[Rustic]

Universal background checks? What does that mean?

...chipping away at our freedoms.

By the way, most violent crimes using firearms... The firearms are stolen.

 

[charwin95]

Universal background checks? What does that mean?

...chipping away at our freedoms.

By the way, most violent crimes using firearms... The firearms are stolen.

Universal background check means when you the fly out in the universe looking for UFO.. First stop is uranus.
What do you mean chipping away my freedom? I can go buy guns wherever and whatever I want so why would a background check limiting my freedom? Why are you people so scared about background check?

 

[LOki]

Which is why no one should try to ban guns. The only result is that criminals and the government have all the guns and the innocent have to dodge the bullets.

The innocent and law abiding responsible citizens like me can buy guns whatever and whenever I want here in U.S. no one can stop me...BUT from what I'm understanding from gun nuts is arm ALL people. Am I correct?

No, there are implied limits which are; 1. the person is not a felon, and 2. the person is not criminally insane.

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess?

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.

"Even"? What a douche.

I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

 

[Rustic]

Universal background checks can solve nothing.... No common sense involved.

 

[charwin95]

The innocent and law abiding responsible citizens like me can buy guns whatever and whenever I want here in U.S. no one can stop me...BUT from what I'm understanding from gun nuts is arm ALL people. Am I correct?

No, there are implied limits which are; 1. the person is not a felon, and 2. the person is not criminally insane.

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess?

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.

"Even"? What a douche.

I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows? There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.
Responsible gun owners support gun measures.
Why and how would a background check violate my constitution or a burden to me?

 

[Rustic]

The loophole is the federal government... A study in deceit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

There's no sound reason to accept a limitation to the exercise of a right that knowingly does not achieve its stated purpose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows? There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.

Federal law applies everywhere, including gun shows; buying a gun at a gun show does not allow you to circumvent Federal law in regard to background checks.
Thus, there is no gun show loophole.

 

[LOki]

No, there are implied limits which are; 1. the person is not a felon, and 2. the person is not criminally insane.

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess?

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.

"Even"? What a douche.

I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows?

Yes. There is no gunshow loophole.

There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.

There are no gunshow loophole sales in any states.

There is no background check proposal--no mater how "universal" it claims to be-- that will have any effect on any black-market gun transaction--whether that transaction is conducted at a gun shop, from the back of a van, or a gun show in any state.

"Gunshow loophole" is a fiction. They don't exist.

Responsible gun owners support gun measures.

Correction. Responsible gun owners support reasonable and effective gun measures.

Why and how would a background check violate my constitution or a burden to me?

To require a background check every time you let your dad borrow your shotgun is burdensome. You can't bust clays in your backyard with your buddies--trying each other's guns--without performing reciprocal background checks. The requirement is stupidly burdensome and has zero effect on crime.

Such background check proposals have only ONE purpose: to populate an unconstitutional database of gun owners.

 

[Rustic]

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess?

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.

"Even"? What a douche.

I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows?

Yes. There is no gunshow loophole.

There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.

There are no gunshow loophole sales in any states.

There is no background check proposal--no mater how "universal" it claims to be-- that will have any effect on any black-market gun transaction--whether that transaction is conducted at a gun shop, from the back of a van, or a gun show in any state.

"Gunshow loophole" is a fiction. They don't exist.

Responsible gun owners support gun measures.

Correction. Responsible gun owners support reasonable and effective gun measures.

Why and how would a background check violate my constitution or a burden to me?

To require a background check every time you let your dad borrow your shotgun is burdensome. You can't bust clays in your backyard with your buddies--trying each other's guns--without performing reciprocalnbackground checks. The requirement is stupidly burdensome and has zero effect on crime.

Such background check proposals have only ONE purpose: to populate an unconstitutional database of gun owners.

So very true... Wash rinse and repeat

 

[charwin95]

No? How do you suppose to implement your #1 & 2 without a universal background check at the minimum at least? Or at least close the loophole selling firearms at gun shows. That alone gun supporters strongly disagree because of lost sales.
Secondly I heard all over the Internet which gun nuts heavily advocates that ALL adult citizens should carry armed for defensive use. So what is no to you?

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess?

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.

"Even"? What a douche.

I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows?

Yes. There is no gunshow loophole.

There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.

There are no gunshow loophole sales in any states.

There is no background check proposal--no mater how "universal" it claims to be-- that will have any effect on any black-market gun transaction--whether that transaction is conducted at a gun shop, from the back of a van, or a gun show in any state.

"Gunshow loophole" is a fiction. They don't exist.

Responsible gun owners support gun measures.

Correction. Responsible gun owners support reasonable and effective gun measures.

Why and how would a background check violate my constitution or a burden to me?

To require a background check every time you let your dad borrow your shotgun is burdensome. You can't bust clays in your backyard with your buddies--trying each other's guns--without performing reciprocal background checks. The requirement is stupidly burdensome and has zero effect on crime.

Such background check proposals have only ONE purpose: to populate an unconstitutional database of gun owners.

Why in the world I need a background check borrowing a gun??? Can you explain that? LOL.
Loopholes at gun show is a fiction? I cannot believe I'm reading this. I can guarantee you 100% that loophole at gun show exist by private dealers. To make it easier for you why don't you use Google. You work so hard that explaining that background check doesn't work. ZERO effect when you have not proven anything. Either you like it or not I support background checks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Loopholes at gun show is a fiction? I cannot believe I'm reading this.

You were given an explanation as to why there is no gun show loophole.

Federal law applies everywhere, including gun shows; buying a gun at a gun show does not allow you to circumvent Federal law in regard to background checks.
Thus, there is no gun show loophole.

What here, specifically, confuses you?

 

[LOki]

Your dog don't hunt, Pumpkin.

1. Background checks can't work for OBVIOUS reasons;
2. There is no gun show"loophole";
3. There is no valid "lost sales" connection to be made with regard to protecting rights;
4. And what you think you heard some "gun nuts" say on the internet is meaningless because,

• The actual "gun nuts" represent the tiny minority fringe of those who are pro-rights advocates;
• And what you think you heard is not representative at all of what the mainstream of pro-rights advocates say.

You're welcome, Pumpkin!

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess?

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.

"Even"? What a douche.

I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows?

Yes. There is no gunshow loophole.

There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.

There are no gunshow loophole sales in any states.

There is no background check proposal--no mater how "universal" it claims to be-- that will have any effect on any black-market gun transaction--whether that transaction is conducted at a gun shop, from the back of a van, or a gun show in any state.

"Gunshow loophole" is a fiction. They don't exist.

Responsible gun owners support gun measures.

Correction. Responsible gun owners support reasonable and effective gun measures.

Why and how would a background check violate my constitution or a burden to me?

To require a background check every time you let your dad borrow your shotgun is burdensome. You can't bust clays in your backyard with your buddies--trying each other's guns--without performing reciprocal background checks. The requirement is stupidly burdensome and has zero effect on crime.

Such background check proposals have only ONE purpose: to populate an unconstitutional database of gun owners.

Why in the world I need a background check borrowing a gun??? Can you explain that? LOL.

That's what universal background check means, Cupcake. ALL transfers... even temporary ones... are subject to background checks. If you read the content of your own links, you'd already know that.

Loopholes at gun show is a fiction?

For the hundredth time, yes. The "gun show loophole" is a fiction.

I cannot believe I'm reading this.

Believe it, Cupcake.

I can guarantee you 100% that loophole at gun show exist by private dealers.

Can you guarantee leprechauns exist too?

To make it easier for you why don't you use Google.

Right. I found leprechauns on the internet too. And evidence of Noah's flood. And sincere "proof" that the world is flat.

All fiction.

You work so hard that explaining that background check doesn't work.

It wasn't hard at all. In fact, it's self-evident.

Background checks for guns cannot be effective when background checks are not conducted for the person ultimately in possession of the gun. No criminal--or person with criminal intent--will subject themselves to a background check that they won't pass.

But they'll still get a gun.

You need to explain how checking the backgrounds of people who will pass the check, will prevent those who won't pass the check from obtaining a gun. Good luck.

ZERO effect when you have not proven anything.

I don't have to prove a negative.

Either you like it or not I support background checks.

Well then, explain how they could possibly work then, Cupcake.

 

[Rustic]

There again why would criminals buy guns from an expensive gun show??

Stealing them is much easier and cheaper for them.

 

[charwin95]

If background checks doesn't work so why are you scared of implementing it?

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

Why don't you let it go instead of giving all these excuses princess?

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

Even RESPONSIBLE gun owners support some gun measures.

"Even"? What a douche.

I thought you are more knowledgeable about sales of guns by private dealers at gun shows and apparently not. This was even shown by Ed Lavandera of CNN in Texas gun show. If you close that loophole means lost of sales. Princess.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows?

Yes. There is no gunshow loophole.

There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.

There are no gunshow loophole sales in any states.

There is no background check proposal--no mater how "universal" it claims to be-- that will have any effect on any black-market gun transaction--whether that transaction is conducted at a gun shop, from the back of a van, or a gun show in any state.

"Gunshow loophole" is a fiction. They don't exist.

Responsible gun owners support gun measures.

Correction. Responsible gun owners support reasonable and effective gun measures.

Why and how would a background check violate my constitution or a burden to me?

To require a background check every time you let your dad borrow your shotgun is burdensome. You can't bust clays in your backyard with your buddies--trying each other's guns--without performing reciprocal background checks. The requirement is stupidly burdensome and has zero effect on crime.

Such background check proposals have only ONE purpose: to populate an unconstitutional database of gun owners.

Why in the world I need a background check borrowing a gun??? Can you explain that? LOL.

That's what universal background check means, Cupcake. ALL transfers... even temporary ones... are subject to background checks. If you read the content of your own links, you'd already know that.

Loopholes at gun show is a fiction?

For the hundredth time, yes. The "gun show loophole" is a fiction.

I cannot believe I'm reading this.

Believe it, Cupcake.

I can guarantee you 100% that loophole at gun show exist by private dealers.

Can you guarantee leprechauns exist too?

To make it easier for you why don't you use Google.

Right. I found leprechauns on the internet too. And evidence of Noah's flood. And sincere "proof" that the world is flat.

All fiction.

You work so hard that explaining that background check doesn't work.

It wasn't hard at all. In fact, it's self-evident.

Background checks for guns cannot be effective when background checks are not conducted for the person ultimately in possession of the gun. No criminal--or person with criminal intent--will subject themselves to a background check that they won't pass.

But they'll still get a gun.

You need to explain how checking the backgrounds of people who will pass the check, will prevent those who won't pass the check from obtaining a gun. Good luck.

ZERO effect when you have not proven anything.

I don't have to prove a negative.

Either you like it or not I support background checks.

Well then, explain how they could possibly work then, Cupcake.

Look pumpkin...What is leprechaun has anything to do with loophole at gun shows? Let me repeat it again, why don't you Google to make it easier for you. You have so much knowledge about background check and yet you don't know anything about loopholes sales by private dealer at gun show? And you cannot even google? You are lying princess or you are just in denial or maybe you have not even visited a gun shows. Well I have pumpkin.
If you believe that a loophole at gun show is a friction Just imagine explaining how a background check work for you. Do you know that Trump mother was born in Nigeria?

 

[LOki]

Who's scared? They don't work, are an unnecessary burden upon exercising a Right, and serve only as a means to unconstitutionally populate a database of gun owners.

What excuses, Sis? Be specific.

"Even"? What a douche.

So? Did I say it didn't? No? What's your point, Sis?

Didn't you say there are no loophole at gun shows?

Yes. There is no gunshow loophole.

There are loophole sales at gun show but not all states.

There are no gunshow loophole sales in any states.

There is no background check proposal--no mater how "universal" it claims to be-- that will have any effect on any black-market gun transaction--whether that transaction is conducted at a gun shop, from the back of a van, or a gun show in any state.

"Gunshow loophole" is a fiction. They don't exist.

Responsible gun owners support gun measures.

Correction. Responsible gun owners support reasonable and effective gun measures.

Why and how would a background check violate my constitution or a burden to me?

To require a background check every time you let your dad borrow your shotgun is burdensome. You can't bust clays in your backyard with your buddies--trying each other's guns--without performing reciprocal background checks. The requirement is stupidly burdensome and has zero effect on crime.

Such background check proposals have only ONE purpose: to populate an unconstitutional database of gun owners.

Why in the world I need a background check borrowing a gun??? Can you explain that? LOL.

That's what universal background check means, Cupcake. ALL transfers... even temporary ones... are subject to background checks. If you read the content of your own links, you'd already know that.

Loopholes at gun show is a fiction?

For the hundredth time, yes. The "gun show loophole" is a fiction.

I cannot believe I'm reading this.

Believe it, Cupcake.

I can guarantee you 100% that loophole at gun show exist by private dealers.

Can you guarantee leprechauns exist too?

To make it easier for you why don't you use Google.

Right. I found leprechauns on the internet too. And evidence of Noah's flood. And sincere "proof" that the world is flat.

All fiction.

You work so hard that explaining that background check doesn't work.

It wasn't hard at all. In fact, it's self-evident.

Background checks for guns cannot be effective when background checks are not conducted for the person ultimately in possession of the gun. No criminal--or person with criminal intent--will subject themselves to a background check that they won't pass.

But they'll still get a gun.

You need to explain how checking the backgrounds of people who will pass the check, will prevent those who won't pass the check from obtaining a gun. Good luck.

ZERO effect when you have not proven anything.

I don't have to prove a negative.

Either you like it or not I support background checks.

Well then, explain how they could possibly work then, Cupcake.

Look pumpkin...What is leprechaun has anything to do with loophole at gun shows?

You can find them both on the internet, and they are both pieces of fiction.

That was WAY easy, Cupcake!

Let me repeat it again, why don't you Google to make it easier for you.

Right. Done. Still fiction.

So easy.

You have so much knowledge about background check and yet you don't know anything about loopholes sales by private dealer at gun show?

I know plenty, Cupcake. The "gun show loophole" is a fiction. They don't really exist. You can point at a deer and demand unicorns exist, but you're still pointing at a deer, and unicorns don't exist... Neither does this "gun show loophole" you're pointing at.

And you cannot even google?

I can. I read all about superstitious hand-wringers, and their belief in the scary "gun show loophole" that keeps them up at night. Hilarious!

You are lying princess or you are just in denial or maybe you have not even visited a gun shows.

I have been to plenty of gun shows. I have bought and sold guns at gun shows. There has never been any "gun show loophole."

Maybe you can take me to the loophole some day. That would be nice.

Well I have pumpkin.

Did the loophole give you a gun?

If you believe that a loophole at gun show is a friction

I do; it is.

Just imagine explaining how a background check work for you.

They are meaningless to me, except for how they inconvenience me, and violate my rights.

Do you know that Trump mother was born in Nigeria?

No. Never heard that. Was his Nigerian mother a "gun show loophole"? Could be legit.