The Diference between Republicans and Democrats again is...

[NightFox]

That's it, cut & run with your tail between your legs.

OIC, you're a "let the beatings continue until moral improves kinda guy", well since you do provide a source of comedic relief I'll oblige.


If standing for individual liberty against coercion by the state is radical, then count me as a radical every time, at least I don't have to replace my reason and morality with propaganda like you are so found of doing.

Americans "overwhelmingly" support expanding background checks

Here’s a rundown of all such polls we could find that addressed an expansion of background checks:

• Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.

• CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: "Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. ... If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.

"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.

"If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift." Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.

"Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun." Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.

• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

That's nice and if polls showed that the majority of Americans favored doing away with their freedom of speech, I suppose you'd support that too. Hate to break it to you but appealing to group think as a basis for your argument is still inferior to utilizing reason. I do understand though that you don't have the capacity for reason and thus your propaganda muddled mind is forced to find alternatives.

Got any other laughable arguments in your bag of tricks?

If you are going to take that stance, then the argument that goes along with it is why have ANY laws? If you are OK with felons having the same rights as law abiding citizens, especially access to deadly force, then what are laws created for?

I KNOW, when people walk into gun shows, we can have them give the Boy Scout salute at the door and swear they are law abiding citizens.

Ah yes, now that partisan propaganda, ad hominem and group think have failed you, let's construct some STRAW MEN! you're a just a barrel full of weak, irrational arguments aren't ya?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I hate to burst your bubble, Bfgrn but:

March 13, 2013

Washington (CNN) - A new national poll suggests that support for major restrictions on guns may be fading, three months after the horrific shootings at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Although a majority of Americans favored major restrictions on guns or an outright ban in the wake of the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, when a heavily armed gunman killed 20 young students and six adults, a new CNN/ORC International survey indicates that support has tumbled to just 43%, as more time has passed since that December tragedy.

"Support for stricter gun control has fallen dramatically among two groups - older Americans and people who live in rural areas," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In the immediate aftermath of the shootings in Connecticut, the number of rural Americans who supported major gun restrictions rose to 49% but now that support has dropped 22 points. Support for stricter gun laws dropped 16 points among Americans over 50 years old in that same time."

CNN Poll: Is support for gun control dipping? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/03/18/rel3a.pdf (Page 16)

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/0...ws-drops-newtown-most-just-want-laws-enforced

http://www.policymic.com/articles/31137/gun-control-debate-support-for-stricter-gun-laws-drops

http://washingtonexaminer.com/suppo...-most-just-want-laws-enforced/article/2533980

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576248/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-wanes/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...gun-control-law-drops-since-newtown-shootings

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong/2103419/

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290269-poll-support-for-new-gun-control-dCBS poll

 

[TemplarKormac]

Google is such a wonderful tool, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION]:, you should try it instead of spouting outdated polling numbers! Those polls you cited were taken before the bill was voted on, mine are after it failed!

Game over man.

 

[Bfgrn]

Google is such a wonderful tool, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION]:, you should try it instead of spouting outdated polling numbers! Those polls you cited were taken before the bill was voted on, mine are after it failed!

Game over man.

Often times evil wins out over common sense, especially when it is well funded. So wear your support of coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American's life is snuffed out...you earned it...

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Google is such a wonderful tool, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION]:, you should try it instead of spouting outdated polling numbers! Those polls you cited were taken before the bill was voted on, mine are after it failed!

Game over man.

Often times evil wins out over common sense, especially when it is well funded. So wear your support of coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American's life is snuffed out...you earned it...

Actually, you're the one coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons by making it more difficult for their victims to protect themselves. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American life is snuffed out... you earned it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Google is such a wonderful tool, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION]:, you should try it instead of spouting outdated polling numbers! Those polls you cited were taken before the bill was voted on, mine are after it failed!

Game over man.

Often times evil wins out over common sense, especially when it is well funded. So wear your support of coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American's life is snuffed out...you earned it...

Actually, you're the one coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons by making it more difficult for their victims to protect themselves. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American life is snuffed out... you earned it.

I have always supported the right to bear arms. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, their family and their property.

What I will never understand is why any law abiding citizen would support allowing a safe haven to exist for murderers, felons and criminal to buy deadly weapons.

Maybe you can explain how that is a good thing for America and it's citizens?

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Often times evil wins out over common sense, especially when it is well funded. So wear your support of coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American's life is snuffed out...you earned it...

Actually, you're the one coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons by making it more difficult for their victims to protect themselves. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American life is snuffed out... you earned it.

I have always supported the right to bear arms. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, their family and their property.

What I will never understand is why any law abiding citizen would support allowing a safe haven to exist for murderers, felons and criminal to buy deadly weapons.

Maybe you can explain how that is a good thing for America and it's citizens?

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

There is no evidence to suggest that the gun show "loop hole" has increased crime. What I find odd is that you seem so passionately focused on such a non issue.
In terms of supporting a safe haven for murderers and criminals... I thought that was Rahm Emanuel's job.
I do understand that saying "close the loop hole" sounds better than saying, " Let's require the federal government to be in charge of private transactions". However, I hope not many are fooled by the rhetoric.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, you're the one coddling murderers, wife beaters and felons by making it more difficult for their victims to protect themselves. Be proud that you revel being an accessory to those crimes. Celebrate every time another American life is snuffed out... you earned it.

I have always supported the right to bear arms. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, their family and their property.

What I will never understand is why any law abiding citizen would support allowing a safe haven to exist for murderers, felons and criminal to buy deadly weapons.

Maybe you can explain how that is a good thing for America and it's citizens?

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

There is no evidence to suggest that the gun show "loop hole" has increased crime. What I find odd is that you seem so passionately focused on such a non issue.
In terms of supporting a safe haven for murderers and criminals... I thought that was Rahm Emanuel's job.
I do understand that saying "close the loop hole" sounds better than saying, " Let's require the federal government to be in charge of private transactions". However, I hope not many are fooled by the rhetoric.

There is plenty of evidence when comparing states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

And that is exactly why this is a federal issue. Gaps in federal laws facilitate interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

I've been around a long time, since Harry Truman was in the White House. Needless to say I have witnessed a LOT of debates over laws and legislation, changes in America and deeply divided differences over issues. This one takes the cake.

This is truly a no brainer. That is why so many Americans were behind universal background checks.

Nothing any of you paranoid right wing gun clingers say will make me not view you with utter contempt. This debate has allowed us to see the soul of the right. It is thoroughly devoid of morals or human decency.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I have always supported the right to bear arms. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, their family and their property.

What I will never understand is why any law abiding citizen would support allowing a safe haven to exist for murderers, felons and criminal to buy deadly weapons.

Maybe you can explain how that is a good thing for America and it's citizens?

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

There is no evidence to suggest that the gun show "loop hole" has increased crime. What I find odd is that you seem so passionately focused on such a non issue.
In terms of supporting a safe haven for murderers and criminals... I thought that was Rahm Emanuel's job.
I do understand that saying "close the loop hole" sounds better than saying, " Let's require the federal government to be in charge of private transactions". However, I hope not many are fooled by the rhetoric.

There is plenty of evidence when comparing states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

And that is exactly why this is a federal issue. Gaps in federal laws facilitate interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

I've been around a long time, since Harry Truman was in the White House. Needless to say I have witnessed a LOT of debates over laws and legislation, changes in America and deeply divided differences over issues. This one takes the cake.

This is truly a no brainer. That is why so many Americans were behind universal background checks.

Nothing any of you paranoid right wing gun clingers say will make me not view you with utter contempt. This debate has allowed us to see the soul of the right. It is thoroughly devoid of morals or human decency.

It's a shame that you view me with utter contempt, especially over such a silly and irrational issue. I , however, will simply stick with the facts.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is no evidence to suggest that the gun show "loop hole" has increased crime. What I find odd is that you seem so passionately focused on such a non issue.
In terms of supporting a safe haven for murderers and criminals... I thought that was Rahm Emanuel's job.
I do understand that saying "close the loop hole" sounds better than saying, " Let's require the federal government to be in charge of private transactions". However, I hope not many are fooled by the rhetoric.

There is plenty of evidence when comparing states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

And that is exactly why this is a federal issue. Gaps in federal laws facilitate interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

I've been around a long time, since Harry Truman was in the White House. Needless to say I have witnessed a LOT of debates over laws and legislation, changes in America and deeply divided differences over issues. This one takes the cake.

This is truly a no brainer. That is why so many Americans were behind universal background checks.

Nothing any of you paranoid right wing gun clingers say will make me not view you with utter contempt. This debate has allowed us to see the soul of the right. It is thoroughly devoid of morals or human decency.

It's a shame that you view me with utter contempt, especially over such a silly and irrational issue. I , however, will simply stick with the facts.

Extinguishing a human live via violence is certainly not a 'silly' or 'irrational' issue. It speaks to the very core of what our republic was founded on...LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You folks have put inconvenience ahead of those tenets.

The argument was made that background checks are already in place. That's true for licensed dealers ONLY.

Why is it so hard to understand that some gun sellers are gaming the system and using the gun show loophole to offer a safe haven for criminals to conveniently buy their weapons of death?

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION INTO ILLEGAL SALES OF FIREARMS AT GUN SHOWS

Private Sellers Exploited the Gun Show Loophole

Even though private unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check system, it is a federal felony for them to sell guns to people they have reason to believe are prohibited purchasers (such as felons or the mentally ill). In purchases attempted on 30 private sellers, the undercover investigator showed interest in buying a gun by asking about stopping power or by dry-firing the weapon. After agreeing on a price, the undercover would indicate that he probably couldn't pass a background check. At that point, the seller is required by law to refuse the sale — but only 11 out of 30 sellers did so. Investigators found private dealers who failed these integrity tests at every show, including two sellers who failed at multiple shows. In total, 19 of the 30 private sellers approached failed the integrity test.

The 11 sellers who terminated the sale confirmed that private sellers know the law. As one seller in Columbus, Ohio, explained "I mean even as a private citizen, I'm kind of allowed a certain latitude, but once you say that [you can't pass the background check], I'm kind of obligated not to sell to you. I think that's what the rules are."

The investigation also revealed that some private sellers are in fact apparently "engaged in the business" of selling firearms without a federal license, in violation of the law. For example, one seller sold to investigators at three different gun shows and acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in less than one year.

 

[beagle9]

You often accuse those on the right of being extreme, but yet you accuse them of being accessories to murder. When you propose something such as "Universal Background Checks" you propose something that has no limit to its scope. Just how far will our government take this new program? Of course, you folks don't consider the ramifications of your fantastical imaginings on gun control, now do you? But then again, your whole gun control thing failed in Chicago, if I recall. When you suggest something like this, you open the American citizenry to a multitude of constitutional violations, namely of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

I still don't understand why you call us extreme, considering the liberal views on abortion. Frankly, you have no room to speak on murder, given that you probably advocate the wanton slaughter of innocent children in the womb for the sake of a woman's right to choose.

If you want to pull the wool over someone's eyes, I suggest someone more gullible than I.

The statist mode boiled down to it's essence, propose invading the privacy of every law abiding gun buyer while at the same time massively increasing the centralization of power and anybody that dares to object to such a policy is immediately demonized and marginalized as "extreme". One has to wonder how any person can be so lacking in empathy and reason as to consider objections to such egregious violations of individual liberty worthy of derision.

At what point would such people object to the federal government violating the citizenry? Is there any point at which they would as long as their particular brand of politician is in power?

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley Jr.

WOW, I really didn't have to go far to find EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Take note FA_Q2...

What is the limit of the scope of universal background checks? EXACTLY that. If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...

HOW fucking extreme can us liberals get, who the fuck wants to stop felons from buying a gun!

That's funny, when I purchased my guns way back in the early 90's, I had to submit to a background check then, otherwise I couldn't just buy my guns and walk out with them on the same day from Wal-Mart, so I had to return to get the guns once clearance had been established on me back then as I recall, so what are you talking about ? More stringent background checks than what already existed back then ? If so, then I can see what people are getting all upset about, otherwise where does it stop in running down the good citizen while the bad ones go right on whistling along?

 

[beagle9]

There is plenty of evidence when comparing states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

And that is exactly why this is a federal issue. Gaps in federal laws facilitate interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

I've been around a long time, since Harry Truman was in the White House. Needless to say I have witnessed a LOT of debates over laws and legislation, changes in America and deeply divided differences over issues. This one takes the cake.

This is truly a no brainer. That is why so many Americans were behind universal background checks.

Nothing any of you paranoid right wing gun clingers say will make me not view you with utter contempt. This debate has allowed us to see the soul of the right. It is thoroughly devoid of morals or human decency.

It's a shame that you view me with utter contempt, especially over such a silly and irrational issue. I , however, will simply stick with the facts.

Extinguishing a human live via violence is certainly not a 'silly' or 'irrational' issue. It speaks to the very core of what our republic was founded on...LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You folks have put inconvenience ahead of those tenets.

The argument was made that background checks are already in place. That's true for licensed dealers ONLY.

Why is it so hard to understand that some gun sellers are gaming the system and using the gun show loophole to offer a safe haven for criminals to conveniently buy their weapons of death?

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION INTO ILLEGAL SALES OF FIREARMS AT GUN SHOWS

Private Sellers Exploited the Gun Show Loophole

Even though private unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check system, it is a federal felony for them to sell guns to people they have reason to believe are prohibited purchasers (such as felons or the mentally ill). In purchases attempted on 30 private sellers, the undercover investigator showed interest in buying a gun by asking about stopping power or by dry-firing the weapon. After agreeing on a price, the undercover would indicate that he probably couldn't pass a background check. At that point, the seller is required by law to refuse the sale — but only 11 out of 30 sellers did so. Investigators found private dealers who failed these integrity tests at every show, including two sellers who failed at multiple shows. In total, 19 of the 30 private sellers approached failed the integrity test.

The 11 sellers who terminated the sale confirmed that private sellers know the law. As one seller in Columbus, Ohio, explained "I mean even as a private citizen, I'm kind of allowed a certain latitude, but once you say that [you can't pass the background check], I'm kind of obligated not to sell to you. I think that's what the rules are."

The investigation also revealed that some private sellers are in fact apparently "engaged in the business" of selling firearms without a federal license, in violation of the law. For example, one seller sold to investigators at three different gun shows and acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in less than one year.

Well how about putting the blame where it belongs then, and that is on the government for not being on top of this the whole time, so where have they been for so long on the issue? Not doing their job I suppose, so do they have blood on their hands ? It's time that the right people get the blame here, and quit blaming all the wrong people, because the laws that were already on the books should have been enforced the whole time.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Yes, I agree that the laws on the books should have been enforced this whole time. You still want to add more laws though even though the laws we have are not enforced. Here's a theory, let's add a hundred more laws and pretend they will accomplish something other than more bureaucracy and less freedoms.
Anyway, why do you trust a government that refuses to enforce its own laws? It might make you feel better I suppose but it won't accomplish anything useful. Tell me, do any of the gun sellers who were mentioned in the sting do anything worse than our own government did in Fast and Furious?
All this emotional outrage and for what? It seems apparent that what you consider "inconvenience" is what I consider "freedom" but until we start focusing on poverty, gangs , broken families and failing schools then I don't really think some silly proclaimed "loop hole" is the cause of our countries ills.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is plenty of evidence when comparing states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

And that is exactly why this is a federal issue. Gaps in federal laws facilitate interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws.

I've been around a long time, since Harry Truman was in the White House. Needless to say I have witnessed a LOT of debates over laws and legislation, changes in America and deeply divided differences over issues. This one takes the cake.

This is truly a no brainer. That is why so many Americans were behind universal background checks.

Nothing any of you paranoid right wing gun clingers say will make me not view you with utter contempt. This debate has allowed us to see the soul of the right. It is thoroughly devoid of morals or human decency.

It's a shame that you view me with utter contempt, especially over such a silly and irrational issue. I , however, will simply stick with the facts.

Extinguishing a human live via violence is certainly not a 'silly' or 'irrational' issue. It speaks to the very core of what our republic was founded on...LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You folks have put inconvenience ahead of those tenets.

The argument was made that background checks are already in place. That's true for licensed dealers ONLY.

Why is it so hard to understand that some gun sellers are gaming the system and using the gun show loophole to offer a safe haven for criminals to conveniently buy their weapons of death?

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION INTO ILLEGAL SALES OF FIREARMS AT GUN SHOWS

Private Sellers Exploited the Gun Show Loophole

Even though private unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check system, it is a federal felony for them to sell guns to people they have reason to believe are prohibited purchasers (such as felons or the mentally ill). In purchases attempted on 30 private sellers, the undercover investigator showed interest in buying a gun by asking about stopping power or by dry-firing the weapon. After agreeing on a price, the undercover would indicate that he probably couldn't pass a background check. At that point, the seller is required by law to refuse the sale — but only 11 out of 30 sellers did so. Investigators found private dealers who failed these integrity tests at every show, including two sellers who failed at multiple shows. In total, 19 of the 30 private sellers approached failed the integrity test.

The 11 sellers who terminated the sale confirmed that private sellers know the law. As one seller in Columbus, Ohio, explained "I mean even as a private citizen, I'm kind of allowed a certain latitude, but once you say that [you can't pass the background check], I'm kind of obligated not to sell to you. I think that's what the rules are."

The investigation also revealed that some private sellers are in fact apparently "engaged in the business" of selling firearms without a federal license, in violation of the law. For example, one seller sold to investigators at three different gun shows and acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in less than one year.

And all that shows is that those laws (as well as the ones proposed for furthering background checks) are ineffective. Nice work. Does nothing to bolster your opinion though so I wonder why you posted it…

 

[Bfgrn]

It's a shame that you view me with utter contempt, especially over such a silly and irrational issue. I , however, will simply stick with the facts.

Extinguishing a human live via violence is certainly not a 'silly' or 'irrational' issue. It speaks to the very core of what our republic was founded on...LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You folks have put inconvenience ahead of those tenets.

The argument was made that background checks are already in place. That's true for licensed dealers ONLY.

Why is it so hard to understand that some gun sellers are gaming the system and using the gun show loophole to offer a safe haven for criminals to conveniently buy their weapons of death?

UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION INTO ILLEGAL SALES OF FIREARMS AT GUN SHOWS

Private Sellers Exploited the Gun Show Loophole

Even though private unlicensed sellers are not required to run background checks using the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check system, it is a federal felony for them to sell guns to people they have reason to believe are prohibited purchasers (such as felons or the mentally ill). In purchases attempted on 30 private sellers, the undercover investigator showed interest in buying a gun by asking about stopping power or by dry-firing the weapon. After agreeing on a price, the undercover would indicate that he probably couldn't pass a background check. At that point, the seller is required by law to refuse the sale — but only 11 out of 30 sellers did so. Investigators found private dealers who failed these integrity tests at every show, including two sellers who failed at multiple shows. In total, 19 of the 30 private sellers approached failed the integrity test.

The 11 sellers who terminated the sale confirmed that private sellers know the law. As one seller in Columbus, Ohio, explained "I mean even as a private citizen, I'm kind of allowed a certain latitude, but once you say that [you can't pass the background check], I'm kind of obligated not to sell to you. I think that's what the rules are."

The investigation also revealed that some private sellers are in fact apparently "engaged in the business" of selling firearms without a federal license, in violation of the law. For example, one seller sold to investigators at three different gun shows and acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in less than one year.

And all that shows is that those laws (as well as the ones proposed for furthering background checks) are ineffective. Nice work. Does nothing to bolster your opinion though so I wonder why you posted it…

What is so hard to understand?

Under current law, registered dealers are required by law to run a background check on ever gun sale. It WORKS.

Under current law, unregistered dealers, known as 'private' sellers are NOT required to run a background check.

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be “occasional sellers” are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an “occasional seller” – it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not “engaged in the business” of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Here is some info on the loophole...

What is the gun show loophole?

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.

• Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.
  

• The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks – and there’s no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]

• Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.

...........*ATF concluded that “gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”[iii]

• Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting: In March 2010, John Bedell – who was prohibited by law from possessing guns – shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.

• Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution: Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks.

 

[billyerock1991]

But its OK with you if they murder the child that is growing in it? Too bad your mother was not pro-choice.

yes it ok for them to murder the unborn fetus that's growing inside of them ...its their choice to make, not yours .... as I said they just can't seem to say out of womans business .... they think they have a right to tell a woman what to do with their vagina's, they don't!!!

That would be uterus, not vagina...

don't be stupid if that's possible

 

[billyerock1991]

So then you opposed the ACA as that requires, by law, for everyone to purchase a product from a corporation. Likely the largest corporate payoff I have ever seen. Wait, nope. You support that travesty. But at least you opposed bailouts, right? I mean, we had TRILLIONS that were given to the banks on loans and BILLIONS that were simply handed to the car companies for free. Oh, wait. Wrong again. But at least you have been vocally against the corporate payoffs of this administration in defunct green energy companies that should never have been sent money in the first place. Wait. Wrong again.

The idea that the democrats do not support taxpayers being corporate slaves is utter bullshit. It is not that they are no better than the republicans. That is false. They perfected the unholy marriage of company and government. The one real difference between republicans and democrats in this arena is that democrats like to mandate monopolies for their favored companies. It is pathetic.

PAYGO was fun, wasn’t it. It was a blast watching the dems promise to pay for everything as we went and then summarily exempt almost all funding from paygo’s rules. That’s another thing the democrats are good at, making rules and then completely ignoring them.

that's why we dems had a 500 billion dollar surplus when bush got elected cause we didn't pay as we go ....

There, a size more fitting of your false implication.

No, paygo had zero to do with that little fact. The fact that we had a divided government was pivotal to controlling spending for one. For another, that phantom ‘surpluses’ (as the debt DID NOT DECREASE) was DIRECTLY due to an increased influx of social security monies that were not expected directly related to the dot com bubble. I realize all of this is wasted on someone like you but actually try and deal with the fact that there was more to government than your asinine and ignored measure.

so what you're saying here Clintoin didn't raise the taxes on the rich and the middle class to pay for the programs that he want to have be paid for.... that never happen right ???? Better go back and listen to all the republicans whine about how the government is going to go backward into a huge debt because clinton didn't pass any tax increases .... you see the dems did raised taxes on the rich and the middle class ... I guess by him not raising taxers to pay for his program is why the republicans didn't get elected in 1994 because all the voters agreed with Clinton not raising taxes ... you can hide all you want from the truth, but them pesky little facts seem to keep hitting you right between your eyes

 

[billyerock1991]

Republican W came in to fix Slick Willy's spending orgy and then spent us into the ground, including adding a prescription drug welfare benefit to greatly expand Medicare and he raised Social Security taxes through the roof.

But W was getting us into all these military conflicts and Obama came in to fix that, so he finished Iraq according to W's timeline, expanded Afghanistan and has gotten us into more wars like Libya and now he's trying to get us into Syria.

I can't remember, what's the difference between both your pathetic parties again?

What's funnier is how you tell me I'm throwing my vote away by not voting for either of you. When you figure out how you're different, let me know.

seems you're a tad bit deranged ...
now for the difference ...
republicans will try their best to take every dime you have ... they will steel your retirement... they will take your health care away from you .... they will go war only to serve their corporate bosses needs ... while telling you this is the patriotic thing to do ... and lie about why you are going to war ....

democrats will make sure republicans give the money back they stole from you forcing them republicans to be fair .... Dems will give you a health care plan that doesn't cost you through the nose ... and dems will only go to war when evil is really challenging your way of life and not lie to you about it ...

in other words you have your head squarely up the Democrats ass's....say hello to Dean for me....

translation=ya got nuttin' ...
have you notice when republican get their head handed to them they become fixated with your ass ... especially the homo republicans ...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Clinton never had a surplus. You can't move budget items around, essentially stealing from Peter to pay Paul and call it a surplus.


You're welcome.

 

[billyerock1991]

People are slowly coming to realize that the Republican Party is every bit as evil and Statist as the Dems

We had Dubya and a Republican Congress and instead of moving toward free enterprise and liberty we got Democrat solutions and then a successful terrorist attack just to keep us distracted.

I didnt want to believe it, but its fairly obvious that there's no way a bunch pf sheepfuckers living in caves in Pashtun planned and executed 911 without a HUGE assist from our government. We were coming into an era of declining Federal spending, peace and prosperity and Voila we're off to war against some vague, faraway enemy

The Democrats have been body snatched by the Communists and want nothing less than to Detroitfy the entire USA

you know when one reads your post one has to feel sorry for you ... how can one person be soooooooooooooooooo ignorant ... but then again you're repub-lie-tard who keep proving to us day in and day out how stupid they can be

how does the Democrat Ass taste Billy?.....hey is that david spade in your avi?....

I sorry you can't stick your fingers in my ass... nor can you lick my ass with your wagging tongue ... you can take those need of yours to the rest of your homo republicans aacquaintances , I'm sure they're waiting for your hot little finger and your sticky wagging tongue ... puff !!! puff !!! little dick smoker