The only laws that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN, followed by confiscation

[martybegan]

Gun shows where nobody asks questions. Its a loophole brought to you by the NRA and their partners in mayhem; their members.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c

How many guns used in crimes can be traced to gun shows?

Hmmm...interesting question.



Since nobody is asking for information or even first names, ID's, much less doing background checks to see if you're selling to Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards.... We never will know.

The video proves it.

and if we make a law saying you can't do that, how will it be enforced?

 

[candycorn]

How many guns used in crimes can be traced to gun shows?

Hmmm...interesting question.



Since nobody is asking for information or even first names, ID's, much less doing background checks to see if you're selling to Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards.... We never will know.

The video proves it.

and if we make a law saying you can't do that, how will it be enforced?

Again, we do what you think can't be done; address the problem of over supply. You don't have gun shows when there is a scarcity of guns. You attack the supply problem first then you enforce those who break existing gun laws/toughen up the existing gun laws and that addresses the existing guns. Will it solve all gun crime? No. Eventually the supply shifts to those who are responsible and can maintain financial responsibility.

 

[martybegan]

Hmmm...interesting question.



Since nobody is asking for information or even first names, ID's, much less doing background checks to see if you're selling to Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards.... We never will know.

The video proves it.

and if we make a law saying you can't do that, how will it be enforced?

Again, we do what you think can't be done; address the problem of over supply. You don't have gun shows when there is a scarcity of guns. You attack the supply problem first then you enforce those who break existing gun laws/toughen up the existing gun laws and that addresses the existing guns. Will it solve all gun crime? No. Eventually the supply shifts to those who are responsible and can maintain financial responsibility.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Spoonman]

Hmmm...interesting question.



Since nobody is asking for information or even first names, ID's, much less doing background checks to see if you're selling to Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards.... We never will know.

The video proves it.

and if we make a law saying you can't do that, how will it be enforced?

Again, we do what you think can't be done; address the problem of over supply. You don't have gun shows when there is a scarcity of guns. You attack the supply problem first then you enforce those who break existing gun laws/toughen up the existing gun laws and that addresses the existing guns. Will it solve all gun crime? No. Eventually the supply shifts to those who are responsible and can maintain financial responsibility.

but it sure will violate constitutional rights.

 

[candycorn]

How many guns used in crimes can be traced to gun shows?

Hmmm...interesting question.



Since nobody is asking for information or even first names, ID's, much less doing background checks to see if you're selling to Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards.... We never will know.

The video proves it.

Anywhere like gun shows, where irresponsible acts are committed in the sell of weapons, I'd say just stiffen the penalties and then enforce them big time. Many bad things are going on in this nation, and they are going on because we don't have the will or the enforcement arm in which is needed to combat these problems like we should, so why is that maybe ? I am totally against any irresponsible bull crap when it comes to something like this, and especially if people get dead after such acts take place. On one hand people want an individual to show a photo ID to vote, but on the other one can buy a gun without proving a number of things that is needed to keep the nation safe from the bad guy's ? Go figure! So it is that people fear a vote more than they fear a gun in the wrong hands these days ? wow!

I think both do have damaging affects, so lets fix both of these problems I'd say. No photo ID in the case of voting, no background check in the case of guns, then all services will be denied. Period!

There is a demand for no questions asked purchases....


There is also a segment of the constabulary that feels the gun laws are too intrusive and could care less; the old "If they don't buy them here, they'll just buy them somewhere else" mentality the defeatist mentality the NRA and it's members parrot.

Any problem caused by humans can be solved by humans.

 

[candycorn]

and if we make a law saying you can't do that, how will it be enforced?

Again, we do what you think can't be done; address the problem of over supply. You don't have gun shows when there is a scarcity of guns. You attack the supply problem first then you enforce those who break existing gun laws/toughen up the existing gun laws and that addresses the existing guns. Will it solve all gun crime? No. Eventually the supply shifts to those who are responsible and can maintain financial responsibility.

but it sure will violate constitutional rights.

There is nothing in the constitution about the price of firearms. Why is it you guys want anctivist judges inserting things into the Constitution that are not there?

 

[martybegan]

Again, we do what you think can't be done; address the problem of over supply. You don't have gun shows when there is a scarcity of guns. You attack the supply problem first then you enforce those who break existing gun laws/toughen up the existing gun laws and that addresses the existing guns. Will it solve all gun crime? No. Eventually the supply shifts to those who are responsible and can maintain financial responsibility.

but it sure will violate constitutional rights.

There is nothing in the constitution about the price of firearms. Why is it you guys want anctivist judges inserting things into the Constitution that are not there?

its an end run to deny people their 2nd amendment rights due to their economic class. So why do you hate poor people? And why do you want them to be unarmed and at the mercy of criminals?

 

[candycorn]

but it sure will violate constitutional rights.

There is nothing in the constitution about the price of firearms. Why is it you guys want anctivist judges inserting things into the Constitution that are not there?

its an end run to deny people their 2nd amendment rights due to their economic class.

I agree, the gun companies are unconstitutional since they charge money for what you're guaranteed a right to have. Newspapers should be free too...right?

 

[martybegan]

There is nothing in the constitution about the price of firearms. Why is it you guys want anctivist judges inserting things into the Constitution that are not there?

its an end run to deny people their 2nd amendment rights due to their economic class.

I agree, the gun companies are unconstitutional since they charge money for what you're guaranteed a right to have. Newspapers should be free too...right?

Considering gun companies are in competition with each other it tends to keep the price down to where most people can afford a gun. What you want to do is have government mandate an increase in cost for the sole purpose of making it harder for certain law abiding people to afford a firearm. Once you add the word "government" it becomes infringement.

An example of your proposal on the 1st amendment would be a stamp tax on newspapers, pricing them out of the range of poor people.

This concludes this lesson on government infringement vs. market conditions. I hope you learned something.

 

[Spoonman]

Again, we do what you think can't be done; address the problem of over supply. You don't have gun shows when there is a scarcity of guns. You attack the supply problem first then you enforce those who break existing gun laws/toughen up the existing gun laws and that addresses the existing guns. Will it solve all gun crime? No. Eventually the supply shifts to those who are responsible and can maintain financial responsibility.

but it sure will violate constitutional rights.

There is nothing in the constitution about the price of firearms. Why is it you guys want anctivist judges inserting things into the Constitution that are not there?

price fixing is illegal. but libs never worry about legalities

 

[candycorn]

but it sure will violate constitutional rights.

There is nothing in the constitution about the price of firearms. Why is it you guys want anctivist judges inserting things into the Constitution that are not there?

price fixing is illegal. but libs never worry about legalities

Who is endorsing price fixing? Not me.

 

[Spoonman]

its an end run to deny people their 2nd amendment rights due to their economic class.

I agree, the gun companies are unconstitutional since they charge money for what you're guaranteed a right to have. Newspapers should be free too...right?

Considering gun companies are in competition with each other it tends to keep the price down to where most people can afford a gun. What you want to do is have government mandate an increase in cost for the sole purpose of making it harder for certain law abiding people to afford a firearm. Once you add the word "government" it becomes infringement.

An example of your proposal on the 1st amendment would be a stamp tax on newspapers, pricing them out of the range of poor people.

This concludes this lesson on government infringement vs. market conditions. I hope you learned something.

how about a voters tax. that way only people with finacial responsibility can afford to vote. I think cancorn is onto something here. time to weed out those low information voters

 

[martybegan]

There is nothing in the constitution about the price of firearms. Why is it you guys want anctivist judges inserting things into the Constitution that are not there?

price fixing is illegal. but libs never worry about legalities

Who is endorsing price fixing? Not me.

Nope just the typical gun grabber attempt at an end run around the 2nd amendment.

 

[candycorn]

its an end run to deny people their 2nd amendment rights due to their economic class.

I agree, the gun companies are unconstitutional since they charge money for what you're guaranteed a right to have. Newspapers should be free too...right?

Considering gun companies are in competition with each other it tends to keep the price down to where most people can afford a gun.

Link to the "most people can afford a gun" hogwash.

 

[candycorn]

price fixing is illegal. but libs never worry about legalities

Who is endorsing price fixing? Not me.

Nope just the typical gun grabber attempt at an end run around the 2nd amendment.

Nope, just offering a reasonable solution to an unreasonable situation--unless you like weekly massacres which I assume you do.

 

[martybegan]

I agree, the gun companies are unconstitutional since they charge money for what you're guaranteed a right to have. Newspapers should be free too...right?

Considering gun companies are in competition with each other it tends to keep the price down to where most people can afford a gun.

Link to the "most people can afford a gun" hogwash.

So you can't look up gun prices?

You NEVER hear people complain guns are un-affordable, but you hear plenty about government fees being too high.

 

[Meister]

Who is endorsing price fixing? Not me.

Nope just the typical gun grabber attempt at an end run around the 2nd amendment.

Nope, just offering a reasonable solution to an unreasonable situation--unless you like weekly massacres which I assume you do.

I've asked this question over and over and still no response from other posters.

How could have gun laws prevented the school shootings?

 

[martybegan]

Who is endorsing price fixing? Not me.

Nope just the typical gun grabber attempt at an end run around the 2nd amendment.

Nope, just offering a reasonable solution to an unreasonable situation--unless you like weekly massacres which I assume you do.

are you referencing the 74 shooting in 77 weeks bullshit that has been debunked already as "massacres?"

Welcome to JoeBlow Kellerman territory. Eat a neg.

 

[candycorn]

I agree, the gun companies are unconstitutional since they charge money for what you're guaranteed a right to have. Newspapers should be free too...right?

Considering gun companies are in competition with each other it tends to keep the price down to where most people can afford a gun. What you want to do is have government mandate an increase in cost for the sole purpose of making it harder for certain law abiding people to afford a firearm. Once you add the word "government" it becomes infringement.

An example of your proposal on the 1st amendment would be a stamp tax on newspapers, pricing them out of the range of poor people.

This concludes this lesson on government infringement vs. market conditions. I hope you learned something.

how about a voters tax. that way only people with finacial responsibility can afford to vote. I think cancorn is onto something here. time to weed out those low information voters

When casting a vote directly results in a body count, your idiotic rant du jour may be woth considering.

Time has proven that guns result in mayhem and society has a right to protect itself; the victims have constitutional rights as well. And since we don't have the ability to re-attach heads, arms, substitute blood in all cases, fix paralysis, and make other medical miracles commonplace, the only satisfaction one can demand is financial.

Hence the need for some sort of financial consideration.

While it's true that you can always sue the shooter (they often kill themselves), they are usually either dead, or in jail and are without financial wherewithal to make amends. Also having to pursue legal remedies while you're in the hospital or burying your 6 year old daughter is probably an undue burden.

The gun nut response? Shit happens.

 

[candycorn]

Nope just the typical gun grabber attempt at an end run around the 2nd amendment.

Nope, just offering a reasonable solution to an unreasonable situation--unless you like weekly massacres which I assume you do.

are you referencing the 74 shooting in 77 weeks bullshit that has been debunked already as "massacres?"

Welcome to JoeBlow Kellerman territory. Eat a neg.

Whatever...wow a negative rating? Make me laugh harder.

Near-Weekly massacres
brought to you by the NRA and it's members.​