CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

[2aguy]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

Wrong......we have presented actual solutions....which we already have....

You however have typed vast amounts of information and simply attacked normal gun owners.

I will repeat what actually works.

1) When someone commits a crime with a gun, arrest them.

2) When a felon is caught buying, owning or carrying a gun, arrest them.

3) for the above two situations, apply a 30 year sentence for the gun crime.

There....this is actually how laws work......they actually work 100% of the time when we do them.....and they actually target people who use guns to commit crimes.....

But that is not what you want....you want a way to limit access for law abiding citizens, while you hide behind the lie that you just want to keep them out of the hands of criminals....

So....why don't you propose what you think will work...and actually explain how it will work against actual criminals and actual mass shooters......and how whatever you propose won't simply be another way to limit access or to inconvenience gun owners who do not commit crimes....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

Wrong......we have presented actual solutions....which we already have....

You however have typed vast amounts of information and simply attacked normal gun owners.

I will repeat what actually works.

1) When someone commits a crime with a gun, arrest them.

2) When a felon is caught buying, owning or carrying a gun, arrest them.

3) for the above two situations, apply a 30 year sentence for the gun crime.

There....this is actually how laws work......they actually work 100% of the time when we do them.....and they actually target people who use guns to commit crimes.....

But that is not what you want....you want a way to limit access for law abiding citizens, while you hide behind the lie that you just want to keep them out of the hands of criminals....

So....why don't you propose what you think will work...and actually explain how it will work against actual criminals and actual mass shooters......and how whatever you propose won't simply be another way to limit access or to inconvenience gun owners who do not commit crimes....

You know WHY liberals won't support that. Too many MORE blacks would end up in prison. Taking a voter bloc from them. That's just the simple truth.

 

[2aguy]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

I was just about to read the OP again to make sure, because I didn't recall the OP saying anything about taking people's guns. As a matter of fact, I've heard you say you don't believe in that. Thanks for clarifying the obvious.

The question was, what can we do to prevent the illegal selling of guns from neighbor to neighbor/friend to friend? And the "2A" crowd descends screaming and flailing like a cat with its head caught in a sack, spouting the same talking points over and over. THAT is why nothing is getting done about sensible gun control in the US. Too many people with guns and big mouths are refusing to discuss the topic sensibly.

And you guys say that we use the same talking points...ignoring that you guys never actually show how the things you propose to stop these illegal sales will actually work.

Then, when we show you how they will not work, you say we use the same talking points........

Universal background checks.....will be gotten around the same way current, federally mandated background checks are gotten around...using straw buyers or stealing the guns....

So tell us how this is just a "talking point" and not a complete breakdown of a useless step that is only desired by anti gun activists so they can get a national gun registry......?

Explain that please...

 

[2aguy]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

Wrong......we have presented actual solutions....which we already have....

You however have typed vast amounts of information and simply attacked normal gun owners.

I will repeat what actually works.

1) When someone commits a crime with a gun, arrest them.

2) When a felon is caught buying, owning or carrying a gun, arrest them.

3) for the above two situations, apply a 30 year sentence for the gun crime.

There....this is actually how laws work......they actually work 100% of the time when we do them.....and they actually target people who use guns to commit crimes.....

But that is not what you want....you want a way to limit access for law abiding citizens, while you hide behind the lie that you just want to keep them out of the hands of criminals....

So....why don't you propose what you think will work...and actually explain how it will work against actual criminals and actual mass shooters......and how whatever you propose won't simply be another way to limit access or to inconvenience gun owners who do not commit crimes....

You know WHY liberals won't support that. Too many MORE blacks would end up in prison. Taking a voter bloc from them. That's just the simple truth.

it is also why you have democrats in Chicago fighting against longer sentences for gun crimes....why Chicago has a revolving door for gun criminals at the same time the democrat politicians are complaining about unchecked gun crime in the city.......

 

[2aguy]

Not all private sales are illegal.

And if you want to stop it it's easy just do what CT does and have all private sales involve a licensed dealer.
I really don't have a problem with the CT law I don't buy or sell guns to or from private individuals.

But I also hold a CT pistol permit which allows me to buy a gun and exempts me from any waiting periods

All of which is blatantly unconstitutional. Where, in the words, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed”, do you find any justification for government to interfere to that degree with the people's exercise of the right so affirmed?

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

Bingo, it's the same thing as Voter ID. You don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting.

An easier system....have FELON printed on the drivers license of all felons....so at a private gun sale they can be asked for photo i.d. to buy the gun.......

just like voter i.d.......and it has the beauty of actually targeting criminals....

In this digital age that isn't necessary AND my system doesn't put any onus on private sellers to check anything.

No...but your system will require normal people to go through a lenghty process that can be blocked or delayed by the federal government...just like local sheriffs who delay granting permits....but on a national, less accountable level.

 

[2aguy]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

I was just about to read the OP again to make sure, because I didn't recall the OP saying anything about taking people's guns. As a matter of fact, I've heard you say you don't believe in that. Thanks for clarifying the obvious.

The question was, what can we do to prevent the illegal selling of guns from neighbor to neighbor/friend to friend? And the "2A" crowd descends screaming and flailing like a cat with its head caught in a sack, spouting the same talking points over and over. THAT is why nothing is getting done about sensible gun control in the US. Too many people with guns and big mouths are refusing to discuss the topic sensibly.

By “sensible”, what you mean is that you want us to incrementally give up an essential Constitutional right, and to get nothing in return except an empty promise of safety. Benjamin Franklin gave our answer to this, a long time ago.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”​

Here is the only sensible “compromise”. You loathsome, criminal-loving liberal scumbags don't try to take away our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and in return, we won't shoot you for trying to rob us of this right.

I'm on your side...don't give 320 any opportunity to go after you...it is the CDC, where he posts because he is afraid of criticism......

 

[OldLady]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

I was just about to read the OP again to make sure, because I didn't recall the OP saying anything about taking people's guns. As a matter of fact, I've heard you say you don't believe in that. Thanks for clarifying the obvious.

The question was, what can we do to prevent the illegal selling of guns from neighbor to neighbor/friend to friend? And the "2A" crowd descends screaming and flailing like a cat with its head caught in a sack, spouting the same talking points over and over. THAT is why nothing is getting done about sensible gun control in the US. Too many people with guns and big mouths are refusing to discuss the topic sensibly.

And you guys say that we use the same talking points...ignoring that you guys never actually show how the things you propose to stop these illegal sales will actually work.

Then, when we show you how they will not work, you say we use the same talking points........

Universal background checks.....will be gotten around the same way current, federally mandated background checks are gotten around...using straw buyers or stealing the guns....

So tell us how this is just a "talking point" and not a complete breakdown of a useless step that is only desired by anti gun activists so they can get a national gun registry......?

Explain that please...

Jesus H. Christ. I was simply commenting that none of you were addressing the question. That you were simply reacting without even listening and not troubling to answer the question in the OP. What did 320 say in the OP he wants to do that's got you all riled up? I guess I missed it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

All of which is blatantly unconstitutional. Where, in the words, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed”, do you find any justification for government to interfere to that degree with the people's exercise of the right so affirmed?

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

Bingo, it's the same thing as Voter ID. You don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting.

An easier system....have FELON printed on the drivers license of all felons....so at a private gun sale they can be asked for photo i.d. to buy the gun.......

just like voter i.d.......and it has the beauty of actually targeting criminals....

In this digital age that isn't necessary AND my system doesn't put any onus on private sellers to check anything.

No...but your system will require normal people to go through a lenghty process that can be blocked or delayed by the federal government...just like local sheriffs who delay granting permits....but on a national, less accountable level.

I'm talking about a one time per person background check. That's it. Then of course steps that allow that right to be suspended for whatever the people decide it can be suspended for (say a domestic disturbance allegation)

My system is actually LESS onerous than the current system.

 

[OldLady]

Hey, guys, did you know we're in the Center for Disease Control?

 

[2aguy]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

I was just about to read the OP again to make sure, because I didn't recall the OP saying anything about taking people's guns. As a matter of fact, I've heard you say you don't believe in that. Thanks for clarifying the obvious.

The question was, what can we do to prevent the illegal selling of guns from neighbor to neighbor/friend to friend? And the "2A" crowd descends screaming and flailing like a cat with its head caught in a sack, spouting the same talking points over and over. THAT is why nothing is getting done about sensible gun control in the US. Too many people with guns and big mouths are refusing to discuss the topic sensibly.

And you guys say that we use the same talking points...ignoring that you guys never actually show how the things you propose to stop these illegal sales will actually work.

Then, when we show you how they will not work, you say we use the same talking points........

Universal background checks.....will be gotten around the same way current, federally mandated background checks are gotten around...using straw buyers or stealing the guns....

So tell us how this is just a "talking point" and not a complete breakdown of a useless step that is only desired by anti gun activists so they can get a national gun registry......?

Explain that please...

Jesus H. Christ. I was simply commenting that none of you were addressing the question. That you were simply reacting without even listening and not troubling to answer the question in the OP. What did 320 say in the OP he wants to do that's got you all riled up? I guess I missed it.

Here....

• The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
• Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.

We have given you the answer to this.....

1) when you catch a criminal using a gun illegally, arrest them.

2) when you catch a felon buying, selling, owning or carrying a gun...arrest them.

3) put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime by real gun criminals....

His question has been addressed and answered....numerous times...with 3 things that actuallly work........

I have posted to links on several threads that the issue is not normal gun owners or sellers....it is Prosecutors and Judges who give light sentences to criminals using guns, who plea bargain the gun charge away, or give under 3 years to felons caught with guns....

There is a tiny number of people who shoot other people......there are 1,333 gang members in Chicago who do the shooting in the city of 3 million people...the police know who they are, they arrest them on gun charges, and prosecutors and judges let them back on the street...where they go on to shoot people.....Hidiya pendleton for example was shot by a felon on bail on a gun charge......

So 320 is not interested in the problem...he likes to cloak his anti gun agenda in high sounding rhetoric......but it all comes back to going after normal gun owners ...instead of actually dealing with the problem...


It is his dishonesty that irritates us...and his smug attitude...

 

[2aguy]

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

Bingo, it's the same thing as Voter ID. You don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting.

An easier system....have FELON printed on the drivers license of all felons....so at a private gun sale they can be asked for photo i.d. to buy the gun.......

just like voter i.d.......and it has the beauty of actually targeting criminals....

In this digital age that isn't necessary AND my system doesn't put any onus on private sellers to check anything.

No...but your system will require normal people to go through a lenghty process that can be blocked or delayed by the federal government...just like local sheriffs who delay granting permits....but on a national, less accountable level.

I'm talking about a one time per person background check. That's it. Then of course steps that allow that right to be suspended for whatever the people decide it can be suspended for (say a domestic disturbance allegation)

My system is actually LESS onerous than the current system.

First question....who pays for it...?

Is it free?

And again...we already have this......if you have no criminal record getting a background check does nothing but add more paperwork, cost and time.......

If you commit a crime with a gun......the right is suspended already....

There is no need for what you want.

 

[2aguy]

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

Bingo, it's the same thing as Voter ID. You don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting.

An easier system....have FELON printed on the drivers license of all felons....so at a private gun sale they can be asked for photo i.d. to buy the gun.......

just like voter i.d.......and it has the beauty of actually targeting criminals....

In this digital age that isn't necessary AND my system doesn't put any onus on private sellers to check anything.

No...but your system will require normal people to go through a lenghty process that can be blocked or delayed by the federal government...just like local sheriffs who delay granting permits....but on a national, less accountable level.

I'm talking about a one time per person background check. That's it. Then of course steps that allow that right to be suspended for whatever the people decide it can be suspended for (say a domestic disturbance allegation)

My system is actually LESS onerous than the current system.

And the person who passes your one time background check who then goes on to use that to be a straw buyer......it is the same situation we currently have......but with added paperwork, time and money.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....the magical background check.....

CPRC at Fox News: "Do Democrats want to disarm minorities?" - Crime Prevention Research Center

Hillary Clinton claims that background checks have stopped 2.4 million dangerous or prohibited people from buying a gun. But what she ought to say is that there were 2.4 million “initial denials.”

These initial denials are akin to being stopped from flying because your name is similar that of someone on the No Fly list. This happened five times to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. By Hillary Clinton’s method of counting, five terrorists were stopped from flying.

About 96 percent of “initial denials” are dropped after the first two stages of review. Many more are dropped during the three remaining stages.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and President Obama have all been criticized for not prosecuting prohibited purchasers. In 2010 (the year of the last full, annual report on the Brady Act), 76,152 denials resulted in only forty-nine federal prosecutions. State prosecutions were also few in number.

But there wasn’t really any failure to prosecute. The vast majority of these denials were not real cases. Sharing a name and birthdate with a felon isn’t the same thing as actually being a felon.

Certain racial groups will encounter this problem more often than others. With some 40 percent of Vietnamese people bearing the name Nguyen, the problem of duplicate names is very likely to exist among people with this national heritage. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other Hispanics, and the same is true of blacks. Also, because 30% of black males are forbidden from buying guns because of their criminal records, law-abiding black males are especially likely to have their names confused with those of prohibited people.

 

[OldLady]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

I was just about to read the OP again to make sure, because I didn't recall the OP saying anything about taking people's guns. As a matter of fact, I've heard you say you don't believe in that. Thanks for clarifying the obvious.

The question was, what can we do to prevent the illegal selling of guns from neighbor to neighbor/friend to friend? And the "2A" crowd descends screaming and flailing like a cat with its head caught in a sack, spouting the same talking points over and over. THAT is why nothing is getting done about sensible gun control in the US. Too many people with guns and big mouths are refusing to discuss the topic sensibly.

And you guys say that we use the same talking points...ignoring that you guys never actually show how the things you propose to stop these illegal sales will actually work.

Then, when we show you how they will not work, you say we use the same talking points........

Universal background checks.....will be gotten around the same way current, federally mandated background checks are gotten around...using straw buyers or stealing the guns....

So tell us how this is just a "talking point" and not a complete breakdown of a useless step that is only desired by anti gun activists so they can get a national gun registry......?

Explain that please...

Jesus H. Christ. I was simply commenting that none of you were addressing the question. That you were simply reacting without even listening and not troubling to answer the question in the OP. What did 320 say in the OP he wants to do that's got you all riled up? I guess I missed it.

Here....

• The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
• Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.

We have given you the answer to this.....

1) when you catch a criminal using a gun illegally, arrest them.

2) when you catch a felon buying, selling, owning or carrying a gun...arrest them.

3) put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime by real gun criminals....

His question has been addressed and answered....numerous times...with 3 things that actuallly work........

I have posted to links on several threads that the issue is not normal gun owners or sellers....it is Prosecutors and Judges who give light sentences to criminals using guns, who plea bargain the gun charge away, or give under 3 years to felons caught with guns....

There is a tiny number of people who shoot other people......there are 1,333 gang members in Chicago who do the shooting in the city of 3 million people...the police know who they are, they arrest them on gun charges, and prosecutors and judges let them back on the street...where they go on to shoot people.....Hidiya pendleton for example was shot by a felon on bail on a gun charge......

So 320 is not interested in the problem...he likes to cloak his anti gun agenda in high sounding rhetoric......but it all comes back to going after normal gun owners ...instead of actually dealing with the problem...


It is his dishonesty that irritates us...and his smug attitude...

Why is it not equally sensible to bring to justice folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms? Since it is mostly ordinary folks selling these guns to bad guys, a stiff penalty for THAT might make some people think twice about selling to someone they know can't legally buy a gun. (Or that maybe they know is kinda screwy or is seeing red over a girl friend or whatever.) I agree that stopping the transfer of the weapon illegally among casual friends who aren't going to give two hoots for Fair & Balanced "permit," might think twice before selling a gun they'd stolen in a break in if they knew it might send them to jail for years. It would be better to stop the criminal from getting the gun than waiting to arrest the criminal AFTER he's shot someone or someones.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Bingo, it's the same thing as Voter ID. You don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting.

An easier system....have FELON printed on the drivers license of all felons....so at a private gun sale they can be asked for photo i.d. to buy the gun.......

just like voter i.d.......and it has the beauty of actually targeting criminals....

In this digital age that isn't necessary AND my system doesn't put any onus on private sellers to check anything.

No...but your system will require normal people to go through a lenghty process that can be blocked or delayed by the federal government...just like local sheriffs who delay granting permits....but on a national, less accountable level.

I'm talking about a one time per person background check. That's it. Then of course steps that allow that right to be suspended for whatever the people decide it can be suspended for (say a domestic disturbance allegation)

My system is actually LESS onerous than the current system.

First question....who pays for it...?

Is it free?

And again...we already have this......if you have no criminal record getting a background check does nothing but add more paperwork, cost and time.......

If you commit a crime with a gun......the right is suspended already....

There is no need for what you want.

OF COURSE there is a need for what I want 2A because we have people right now legally buying guns who have no business buying guns, and you KNOW that's true.

Once again, here's my proposal.

Anyone who wishes to own a firearm , must undergo the same level of background check that is currently applied to be able to buy an automatic weapon, which includes an FBI interview. MUCH more stringent than simply checking to see if a person has ever been arrested for a crime.

Once you have this background check complete, you have the right to buy whatever weapons you wish, and no state can pass ANY law that states otherwise. That means NONE, no limitations, no further rules. Too bad if states don't like that, go pound sand.

Once you have the background check, the state CAN temporarily suspend or even revoke your license for various and obvious reasons though.

IF you come into contact with a police officer and own or are in possession of a firearm without having passed said background check that is 5 years in prison PER weapon, regardless of why you came in contact with police. Which means even it was an illegal search, an illegal weapon results in 5 years in prison, no more letting people go on technicalities.

As for who pays for it, why we all do of course. I don't believe people should have to pay for their ID to vote, and I don't believe they should have to pay for their ID to buy a weapon either. The discussion of how would we pay for it is moot, because we both know that we could easily cut $50B from the budget each year and still fund this if we would just get rid of the various pork barell spending that our politicians do.

Now, here is what's going to happen if some of you adamant gun owner's don't get your head out of your asses. Gun grabbers who have their head in their asses are going to get their way and you're going to start seeing states ban bolt action rifles and such (oh wait, we've already started down that path)

What you say is true, criminals don't follow laws, that is true, but it is false to claim that background checks don't keep people from obtaining firearms. OF COURSE THEY DO. They don't stop everyone who wants to illegally obtain a gun, no they don't do that. Just like security cameras at Wal Mart don't stop every shoplifter from stealing, but they DO discourage the people who are on the fence from stealing. IF they didn't , there would be no purpose in having them.

And that's the ONLY people we can hope to stop from obtaining guns, that is what BOTH sides need to understand. Sure we would lie to prevent EVERY person who uses a gun in a crime from obtaining that gun to begin with, but that isn't possible, so instead we need to focus on doing what we can do, and what we can do, is make sure that the people we don't want having guns have to go outside the system to obtain said guns (and no matter what you say 2A the fact is if a person has to buy a gun on FB or whatever instead of going to a gun store that makes it more difficult to obtain a weapon and the ammunition to go in it) AND put the people who illegally own and or use firearms in prison for a LONG time.

 

[2aguy]

I guess it should come as no surprise that not one gun advocate here has bothered to directly and positively respond the the central question asked in the OP.

Without exception, every gun advocate who's shared their thoughts with me -- both in this forum and in the "real world" -- has refrained from providing so much as the first suggestion that they can credibly, objectively, coherently and cogently present solution options in response to that question. Not one.

I was just about to read the OP again to make sure, because I didn't recall the OP saying anything about taking people's guns. As a matter of fact, I've heard you say you don't believe in that. Thanks for clarifying the obvious.

The question was, what can we do to prevent the illegal selling of guns from neighbor to neighbor/friend to friend? And the "2A" crowd descends screaming and flailing like a cat with its head caught in a sack, spouting the same talking points over and over. THAT is why nothing is getting done about sensible gun control in the US. Too many people with guns and big mouths are refusing to discuss the topic sensibly.

And you guys say that we use the same talking points...ignoring that you guys never actually show how the things you propose to stop these illegal sales will actually work.

Then, when we show you how they will not work, you say we use the same talking points........

Universal background checks.....will be gotten around the same way current, federally mandated background checks are gotten around...using straw buyers or stealing the guns....

So tell us how this is just a "talking point" and not a complete breakdown of a useless step that is only desired by anti gun activists so they can get a national gun registry......?

Explain that please...

Jesus H. Christ. I was simply commenting that none of you were addressing the question. That you were simply reacting without even listening and not troubling to answer the question in the OP. What did 320 say in the OP he wants to do that's got you all riled up? I guess I missed it.

Here....

• The supply chain individuals, those who have no business obtaining a firearm, may use to obtain a firearm need to be eliminated, or at least broken at the point whereby those persons obtain their access to guns.
• Something needs to be done to make more facile prosecutors' efforts to bring to justice "okay to buy guns" folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms.

We have given you the answer to this.....

1) when you catch a criminal using a gun illegally, arrest them.

2) when you catch a felon buying, selling, owning or carrying a gun...arrest them.

3) put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime by real gun criminals....

His question has been addressed and answered....numerous times...with 3 things that actuallly work........

I have posted to links on several threads that the issue is not normal gun owners or sellers....it is Prosecutors and Judges who give light sentences to criminals using guns, who plea bargain the gun charge away, or give under 3 years to felons caught with guns....

There is a tiny number of people who shoot other people......there are 1,333 gang members in Chicago who do the shooting in the city of 3 million people...the police know who they are, they arrest them on gun charges, and prosecutors and judges let them back on the street...where they go on to shoot people.....Hidiya pendleton for example was shot by a felon on bail on a gun charge......

So 320 is not interested in the problem...he likes to cloak his anti gun agenda in high sounding rhetoric......but it all comes back to going after normal gun owners ...instead of actually dealing with the problem...


It is his dishonesty that irritates us...and his smug attitude...

Why is it not equally sensible to bring to justice folks who abet gun abusers in their quest to obtain firearms? Since it is mostly ordinary folks selling these guns to bad guys, a stiff penalty for THAT might make some people think twice about selling to someone they know can't legally buy a gun. (Or that maybe they know is kinda screwy or is seeing red over a girl friend or whatever.) I agree that stopping the transfer of the weapon illegally among casual friends who aren't going to give two hoots for Fair & Balanced "permit," might think twice before selling a gun they'd stolen in a break in if they knew it might send them to jail for years. It would be better to stop the criminal from getting the gun than waiting to arrest the criminal AFTER he's shot someone or someones.

No...it is the friends and family of gang members who are using their clean backgrounds to buy the guns...I have linked to the stories where prosecutors get nothing from prosecuting the baby mommas and mothers and grandmothers of the gang members....so they don't......

My 3 things actually work.........you don't need to license gun owners, you don't need to register guns......you catch a criminal using a gun for a crime...and you arrest them......if they have an illegal gun, you get them to roll over on who gave them that gun......just like we already do with drug dealers.......again, this has the magical advantage of actually targeting criminals, while leaving normal gun owners alone........

Why is there such a problem with this? It addresses everything you want.....it actually addresses the actual problem.......

But....it doesn't punish normal gun owners.....is that it?

 

[Pete7469]

Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Fewer and fewer Americans remain who are gullible and.or ignorant enough, any more, to believe this lie. Those of you on the wrong keep repeating it, along with other lies related to this issue, but all you're accomplishing, any more, is to show sane, decent, law-abiding American what lying scumbags those on your side truly are.

You like to hide behind talk of “reasonable regulations” against a right which the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing; but you're not nearly as good as you think you are at hiding your true motives and intentions. In fact, you're getting to be almost as obvious as the Ku Klux Klan was when it successfully lobbied for the first gun control laws in this nation, specifically aimed at disarming black people; or Timothy Sullivan, the violent criminal gangster-turned-politician who crafted New York's Sullivan Act, specifically to facilitate the disarming of law-abiding citizens as well as rival criminal gangs, to give his own gang an advantage. Your motives today are no better, and not much different.

Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.

The real solution, of course, is to lock up hard, violent criminals, and keep them locked up, or else, in the worst cases, put them to death. Funny, but your side has generally tended to oppose this. Your side has historically tended to take the side of these criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. As with the above examples of the Ku Klux Klan, and Timothy Sullivan, I think it's pretty obvious what your true motive is behind seeking to violate the Second Amendment. You know damn well that the effect of any policies you advocate will be to disproportionately disarm law-abiding citizens, making us easier prey for the criminals that you favor.

BINGO!!!

Whenever someone starts a post with;

""Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right ""

Mod Edit to remove flame and quote box above.

You know that is EXACTLY what the ultimate objective is. There is NO WAY to stop gun crime.

PERIOD.

Let's say the meat puppet faggot acquired magic powers, waved his magic dildo and all the privately owned guns in the entire world disappear. The world would be awash the next day by guns stolen from government vaults and sold for several times their value.

In Peshawar there is an entire industry of people making every sort of crude but fully functional machine gun and destructive device that can be made with minimal tools and skills. The Pakistani government doesn't dare interfere.

Compare that with the thousands of people in North America that have hobby machine shops and can turn out well crafted and highly accurate precision weapons. Do you think that anything will stop them from doing so? Laws against making meth make it possible to get a life sentence, yet people still break those laws to make a few hundred dollars. Care to wager that people won't take a chance to make several thousand turning a chunk of steel into a 1911?

The vast depth of liberal ignorance would pierce the core of the universe if it could be measured at all.

 

[2aguy]

An easier system....have FELON printed on the drivers license of all felons....so at a private gun sale they can be asked for photo i.d. to buy the gun.......

just like voter i.d.......and it has the beauty of actually targeting criminals....

In this digital age that isn't necessary AND my system doesn't put any onus on private sellers to check anything.

No...but your system will require normal people to go through a lenghty process that can be blocked or delayed by the federal government...just like local sheriffs who delay granting permits....but on a national, less accountable level.

I'm talking about a one time per person background check. That's it. Then of course steps that allow that right to be suspended for whatever the people decide it can be suspended for (say a domestic disturbance allegation)

My system is actually LESS onerous than the current system.

First question....who pays for it...?

Is it free?

And again...we already have this......if you have no criminal record getting a background check does nothing but add more paperwork, cost and time.......

If you commit a crime with a gun......the right is suspended already....

There is no need for what you want.

OF COURSE there is a need for what I want 2A because we have people right now legally buying guns who have no business buying guns, and you KNOW that's true.

Once again, here's my proposal.

Anyone who wishes to own a firearm , must undergo the same level of background check that is currently applied to be able to buy an automatic weapon, which includes an FBI interview. MUCH more stringent than simply checking to see if a person has ever been arrested for a crime.

Once you have this background check complete, you have the right to buy whatever weapons you wish, and no state can pass ANY law that states otherwise. That means NONE, no limitations, no further rules. Too bad if states don't like that, go pound sand.

Once you have the background check, the state CAN temporarily suspend or even revoke your license for various and obvious reasons though.

IF you come into contact with a police officer and own or are in possession of a firearm without having passed said background check that is 5 years in prison PER weapon, regardless of why you came in contact with police. Which means even it was an illegal search, an illegal weapon results in 5 years in prison, no more letting people go on technicalities.

As for who pays for it, why we all do of course. I don't believe people should have to pay for their ID to vote, and I don't believe they should have to pay for their ID to buy a weapon either. The discussion of how would we pay for it is moot, because we both know that we could easily cut $50B from the budget each year and still fund this if we would just get rid of the various pork barell spending that our politicians do.

Now, here is what's going to happen if some of you adamant gun owner's don't get your head out of your asses. Gun grabbers who have their head in their asses are going to get their way and you're going to start seeing states ban bolt action rifles and such (oh wait, we've already started down that path)

What you say is true, criminals don't follow laws, that is true, but it is false to claim that background checks don't keep people from obtaining firearms. OF COURSE THEY DO. They don't stop everyone who wants to illegally obtain a gun, no they don't do that. Just like security cameras at Wal Mart don't stop every shoplifter from stealing, but they DO discourage the people who are on the fence from stealing. IF they didn't , there would be no purpose in having them.

And that's the ONLY people we can hope to stop from obtaining guns, that is what BOTH sides need to understand. Sure we would lie to prevent EVERY person who uses a gun in a crime from obtaining that gun to begin with, but that isn't possible, so instead we need to focus on doing what we can do, and what we can do, is make sure that the people we don't want having guns have to go outside the system to obtain said guns (and no matter what you say 2A the fact is if a person has to buy a gun on FB or whatever instead of going to a gun store that makes it more difficult to obtain a weapon and the ammunition to go in it) AND put the people who illegally own and or use firearms in prison for a LONG time.

Sorry......the poor will suffer under this.......put FELON on the i.d. of felons.....just like voter i.d.

 

[2aguy]

An easier system....have FELON printed on the drivers license of all felons....so at a private gun sale they can be asked for photo i.d. to buy the gun.......

just like voter i.d.......and it has the beauty of actually targeting criminals....

In this digital age that isn't necessary AND my system doesn't put any onus on private sellers to check anything.

No...but your system will require normal people to go through a lenghty process that can be blocked or delayed by the federal government...just like local sheriffs who delay granting permits....but on a national, less accountable level.

I'm talking about a one time per person background check. That's it. Then of course steps that allow that right to be suspended for whatever the people decide it can be suspended for (say a domestic disturbance allegation)

My system is actually LESS onerous than the current system.

First question....who pays for it...?

Is it free?

And again...we already have this......if you have no criminal record getting a background check does nothing but add more paperwork, cost and time.......

If you commit a crime with a gun......the right is suspended already....

There is no need for what you want.

OF COURSE there is a need for what I want 2A because we have people right now legally buying guns who have no business buying guns, and you KNOW that's true.

Once again, here's my proposal.

Anyone who wishes to own a firearm , must undergo the same level of background check that is currently applied to be able to buy an automatic weapon, which includes an FBI interview. MUCH more stringent than simply checking to see if a person has ever been arrested for a crime.

Once you have this background check complete, you have the right to buy whatever weapons you wish, and no state can pass ANY law that states otherwise. That means NONE, no limitations, no further rules. Too bad if states don't like that, go pound sand.

Once you have the background check, the state CAN temporarily suspend or even revoke your license for various and obvious reasons though.

IF you come into contact with a police officer and own or are in possession of a firearm without having passed said background check that is 5 years in prison PER weapon, regardless of why you came in contact with police. Which means even it was an illegal search, an illegal weapon results in 5 years in prison, no more letting people go on technicalities.

As for who pays for it, why we all do of course. I don't believe people should have to pay for their ID to vote, and I don't believe they should have to pay for their ID to buy a weapon either. The discussion of how would we pay for it is moot, because we both know that we could easily cut $50B from the budget each year and still fund this if we would just get rid of the various pork barell spending that our politicians do.

Now, here is what's going to happen if some of you adamant gun owner's don't get your head out of your asses. Gun grabbers who have their head in their asses are going to get their way and you're going to start seeing states ban bolt action rifles and such (oh wait, we've already started down that path)

What you say is true, criminals don't follow laws, that is true, but it is false to claim that background checks don't keep people from obtaining firearms. OF COURSE THEY DO. They don't stop everyone who wants to illegally obtain a gun, no they don't do that. Just like security cameras at Wal Mart don't stop every shoplifter from stealing, but they DO discourage the people who are on the fence from stealing. IF they didn't , there would be no purpose in having them.

And that's the ONLY people we can hope to stop from obtaining guns, that is what BOTH sides need to understand. Sure we would lie to prevent EVERY person who uses a gun in a crime from obtaining that gun to begin with, but that isn't possible, so instead we need to focus on doing what we can do, and what we can do, is make sure that the people we don't want having guns have to go outside the system to obtain said guns (and no matter what you say 2A the fact is if a person has to buy a gun on FB or whatever instead of going to a gun store that makes it more difficult to obtain a weapon and the ammunition to go in it) AND put the people who illegally own and or use firearms in prison for a LONG time.

And this would still not be enough for the anti gunners....because people who pass your background check will still provide guns to criminals or will walk into a public place and murder people........

They will not stop with half measures......and giving in to them just tics one more item off of their list...it is not an end point.....

You know this........

 

[OldLady]

Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Fewer and fewer Americans remain who are gullible and.or ignorant enough, any more, to believe this lie. Those of you on the wrong keep repeating it, along with other lies related to this issue, but all you're accomplishing, any more, is to show sane, decent, law-abiding American what lying scumbags those on your side truly are.

You like to hide behind talk of “reasonable regulations” against a right which the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing; but you're not nearly as good as you think you are at hiding your true motives and intentions. In fact, you're getting to be almost as obvious as the Ku Klux Klan was when it successfully lobbied for the first gun control laws in this nation, specifically aimed at disarming black people; or Timothy Sullivan, the violent criminal gangster-turned-politician who crafted New York's Sullivan Act, specifically to facilitate the disarming of law-abiding citizens as well as rival criminal gangs, to give his own gang an advantage. Your motives today are no better, and not much different.

Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.

The real solution, of course, is to lock up hard, violent criminals, and keep them locked up, or else, in the worst cases, put them to death. Funny, but your side has generally tended to oppose this. Your side has historically tended to take the side of these criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. As with the above examples of the Ku Klux Klan, and Timothy Sullivan, I think it's pretty obvious what your true motive is behind seeking to violate the Second Amendment. You know damn well that the effect of any policies you advocate will be to disproportionately disarm law-abiding citizens, making us easier prey for the criminals that you favor.

BINGO!!!

Whenever someone starts a post with;

Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right

You know that is EXACTLY what the ultimate objective is. There is NO WAY to stop gun crime.

PERIOD.

Let's say the meat puppet faggot acquired magic powers, waved his magic dildo and all the privately owned guns in the entire world disappear. The world would be awash the next day by guns stolen from government vaults and sold for several times their value.

In Peshawar there is an entire industry of people making every sort of crude but fully functional machine gun and destructive device that can be made with minimal tools and skills. The Pakistani government doesn't dare interfere.

Compare that with the thousands of people in North America that have hobby machine shops and can turn out well crafted and highly accurate precision weapons. Do you think that anything will stop them from doing so? Laws against making meth make it possible to get a life sentence, yet people still break those laws to make a few hundred dollars. Care to wager that people won't take a chance to make several thousand turning a chunk of steel into a 1911?

The vast depth of liberal ignorance would pierce the core of the universe if it could be measured at all.

There is NO WAY to stop gun crime.
PERIOD.

Spoken like a true criminal. Or an anarchist, I don't know which. But whichever, MOST people in this country would like to see us shooting each other less often.