Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[turtledude]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

the federal government doesn't have the proper power to make private sellers conduct a background check because they cannot engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE pursuant to federal law. and the BRADY BILL DID NOT DECREASE GUN CRIME AT ALL

 

[turtledude]

See here is my point. While making a childish comment he calls me infantile. Oh boy. And I'm not even anti gun.

I think everyone really needs to chill though. Some of the nicest people I know are gun owners and the same can be said for anti gun people. Discuss things in a civil manner.

You are vile. The reason why I call you names is because you are a dishonest hack piece of crap with an agenda. You ignore data and links provided to you. You outright lie. YOU claim you are not anti-gun yet post anti-gun rhetoric in EVERY single gun thread. You are a liar and a traitor to the American people. I hate you. That's why I call YOU names. A lying dishonest sack of crap is all you are. YOU have earned every single name I've called you.

And again the angry gun nut. Thanks for proving my point.

Angry anti gun nut is YOU. You want to leave women defenseless against rapists who may even murder them, and even go so far as to say that women can fight off a rapist and that men are NOT stronger than women. You are a piece of shit.

This is part of the problem gun grabbers are facing. Women are the number one driving force behind gun control...conversely, the number one fastest growing segment of gun owners are women.

LAS VEGAS — The gun world is not just a man’s world anymore.

Women are buying more guns, hunting and participating in the shooting sports more than ever, according to a study released Wednesday by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“We’re changing the industry,” said Lucretia Free, publisher of The American Woman Shooter.

In 2001, there were 1.8 million female hunters in the country. In 2013, there were 3.3 million female hunters, an 85 percent increase in the dozen years, according to the study released last week at the shooting sports organization’s annual SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoors Trade) Show in Las Vegas.

In 2001, there were 3.3 million female target shooters in the country. In 2013, that number had grown to 5.4 million, or increased by 60 percent.

And those numbers don’t include the number of women who own a gun only for protection, which is why most women initially buy a gun.

Study More Women Buying Guns Participating In Shooting Sports Times Record
​

What is driving this growth? At least in part the success of the conceal carry movement.

The gun control groups staked their reputations on a lie...that conceal carry would lead to a new "Wild West" where law abiding citizens would be filling the streets with lead! Oh my!

Not only did that narrative prove false, but just the opposite occurred, crime dropped, and responsible citizens (gasp) carried concealed weapons responsibly.

Today, women are asking "why am I not doing that? I am responsible. Why am I leaving myself at a disadvantage?"

And in response, they are not.

My wife owns here own guns, with far different designated purposes than my own. Where my guns are almost exclusively of the hunting variety, hers are exclusively for the purpose of self defense.

She and her girlfriends have a girls range day once a week. At first there were four...now there are ten.

I keep trying to steal away her Maverick 8-shot Model 88 Security 12 gauge, but so far I have not been successful.

Herein lies your problem. NO ONE has proposed banning all guns. Not Obama, not Schumer, not Bloomberg, not Feinstein.

Reasonable guns laws are NOT unreasonable, unless you are an absolutist or extremist.

laws that only impact honest gun owners are not reasonable per se.

 

[2aguy]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Sorry....any gun sold over the internet that goes across state lines must be processed through a FFL......it is against the law otherwise.....

Background checks, the ones we have now stop law abiding citizens more than any criminals....criminals simply use people who can pass a background check to get their guns...or they steal them.....

 

[turtledude]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Sorry....any gun sold over the internet that goes across state lines must be processed through a FFL......it is against the law otherwise.....

Background checks, the ones we have now stop law abiding citizens more than any criminals....criminals simply use people who can pass a background check to get their guns...or they steal them.....

UBGCs are nothing more than attempts by the anti gun scum suckers to create a demand for universal gun registration which is the holy grail for the gun banners

 

[ChrisL]

Second Amendment jurisprudence is currently evolving, and indeed that process has just started.

It could be decades before a comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment right is codified in case law, likely requiring the Supreme Court to weight in with regard to a number of regulatory measures.

Until that time, however, firearm regulatory policy that has been ruled Constitutional by the Federal courts, such as magazine capacity requirements and licensing fees, as well as measures not yet subject to judicial review, do not 'violate' the Second Amendment, nor do they seek to 'infringe' on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

To argue otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

And what good do regulations and laws do against criminals who most of the time obtain their guns through illegal means?

Well, not to put to fine a point on it, ChrisL, but how can a person get firearms through illegal means unless there are laws against them getting guns?

The point is, most of the time, criminals are not going to use legal means to obtain a weapon. I think one reason is that it can be easily traced back to them.

 

[2aguy]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

How exactly would a background check stop him if he isn't a felon genius.......? We don't have a mental illness screen in the system now...and if he lies on the form on the question about mental illness he still gets the gun.......so again...you are wrong........

And if he wants a gun bad enough he will get a gun....no law will stop him...ask the three terrorists in France...a gun with complete gun control of automatic rifles, grenades, handguns and rocket propelled grenades...no gun stores, no 30 round magazines.....and these guys 1 a convicted felon and he and his brother on a government terrorist watch list crossed an international border to another country with complete gun control and bought all those weapons for 5,000 dollars....

So tell me....if Europe can't keep their criminals and terrorists from getting illegal guns.....how do we?

The only rational gun control is putting people who break the law with guns in jail for a long time......

 

[2aguy]

Why the john hinkely story is a lie....and why you can't trust anti gunners in particular the brady campaign against gun violence....


Gun Foes Should Tell The Whole Story - tribunedigital-chicagotribune


Despite the misleading implications about criminal and mental record checks in the fundraising, Mrs. Brady doesn`t formally claim that such checks would have affected Hinckley. Rather, she often argues: ``He lied about his address and used an old Texas driver`s license to purchase that revolver. He was not a Texas resident. A police check would have stopped him from buying a handgun in Texas.`` (Persons can only buy handguns in the state where they reside.)

The trouble is, the evidence indicates that Hinckley was a lawful Texas resident. He bought the guns in Lubbock in October 1980, six months before the assassination attempt. That summer he had attended both sessions at Texas Tech in Lubbock. According to federal rules, a university student is considered a resident of the jurisdiction in which he attends school and may purchase firearms there. Hinckley was also listed in the Lubbock phone book.

Significantly, after the assassination attempt, Hinckley was subjected to an intensive federal investigation. The Department of Justice used every resource possible to ensure his conviction. Notably, Hinckley was not charged with illegally purchasing the handguns in Texas. Had the prosecutors believed that he was guilty of an illegal gun purchase, felony charges would probably have been brought. After all, Hinckley would then have had to convince a jury that he was insane, not just on the day of the assassination but six months before, when he bought his two handguns.

If the full resources of the Department of Justice did not find enough evidence to charge Hinckley with an unlawful gun purchase, it is not realistic to claim that a seven-day background check would have found the exact same transaction illegal. Besides, Handgun Control promises Congress that the waiting period is just a simple criminal and mental records check, not a detailed residency verification.

Never, ever trust anti gunners....they will do anything to stop you from getting a gun....

 

[ChrisL]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Well, maybe that is the problem. People who shoot and kill a person, like that guy, should NEVER be let out of prison . . . or the mental institution. We are too SOFT on criminals.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know but, IMO, if a person takes a life, that person should be incarcerated for life, and that means LIFE, not 30 years and NO parole.

 

[ChrisL]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Sorry....any gun sold over the internet that goes across state lines must be processed through a FFL......it is against the law otherwise.....

Background checks, the ones we have now stop law abiding citizens more than any criminals....criminals simply use people who can pass a background check to get their guns...or they steal them.....

UBGCs are nothing more than attempts by the anti gun scum suckers to create a demand for universal gun registration which is the holy grail for the gun banners

They will never be satisfied. That much is obvious. And it's obviously not LIVES they care about.

 

[Brain357]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Well, maybe that is the problem. People who shoot and kill a person, like that guy, should NEVER be let out of prison . . . or the mental institution. We are too SOFT on criminals.

He didn't kill anyone. Though I would like to see him locked up forever for trying.

 

[ChrisL]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Well, maybe that is the problem. People who shoot and kill a person, like that guy, should NEVER be let out of prison . . . or the mental institution. We are too SOFT on criminals.

He didn't kill anyone. Though I would like to see him locked up forever for trying.

Yes, trying to assassinate a POTUS is a pretty big deal. I would think that would be deserving of a life sentence.

 

[Brain357]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Well, maybe that is the problem. People who shoot and kill a person, like that guy, should NEVER be let out of prison . . . or the mental institution. We are too SOFT on criminals.

He didn't kill anyone. Though I would like to see him locked up forever for trying.

Yes, trying to assassinate a POTUS is a pretty big deal. I would think that would be deserving of a life sentence.

Well that is one thing we agree on. That is strange.

 

[ChrisL]

The guy who shot Ronald Reagan is a law abiding citizen. He is free to walk the streets, and he is not even a felon. Yet, this guy can walk into any gun show in my state and buy any gun he chooses, because there is no background check required at those shows. He can buy any gun he wants on Craig's list, and neither he, nor the seller has any legal responsibility to do a background check. in fact, if the SOB were to buy a sniper rifle and take out a Supreme Court justice or two, the law would not even be able to touch the guy who sold it to him.

A background check (which IS required by licensed retailers, even in AZ, BTW) is another common sense law that should exist. The only people who have any rights curtailed would be those that, for legal reasons, should not be provided the opportunity to legally buy a gun. To state it simply, we should not be living in a society where John Hinckley can legally buy a gun.

Well, maybe that is the problem. People who shoot and kill a person, like that guy, should NEVER be let out of prison . . . or the mental institution. We are too SOFT on criminals.

He didn't kill anyone. Though I would like to see him locked up forever for trying.

Yes, trying to assassinate a POTUS is a pretty big deal. I would think that would be deserving of a life sentence.

Well that is one thing we agree on. That is strange.

Will wonders ever cease?

 

[pismoe]

hey Turtledude , good posts , thanks , also like your sigline that 'man is born free but everywhere he's in chains ' . Something similar !!

 

[pismoe]

last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .

 

[Brain357]

last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .

Explain? I don't recall that. I am pro the death penalty and locking up violent criminals for life. I do think we are doing something wrong when our jails are the fullest in the world, yet our crime rates aren't the lowest. But that is a different topic.

 

[turtledude]

last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .

brain contradicts himself? SAY ITS NOT SO!!

 

[turtledude]

last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .

Explain? I don't recall that. I am pro the death penalty and locking up violent criminals for life. I do think we are doing something wrong when our jails are the fullest in the world, yet our crime rates aren't the lowest. But that is a different topic.

its the war on drugs-which anti gun 'Tards want to extend to a war on guns

 

[Brain357]

last time I mentioned to Brian the violent people should be behind bars for the rest of their life he started talking money and theory that they had served their time .

Explain? I don't recall that. I am pro the death penalty and locking up violent criminals for life. I do think we are doing something wrong when our jails are the fullest in the world, yet our crime rates aren't the lowest. But that is a different topic.

its the war on drugs-which anti gun 'Tards want to extend to a war on guns

You mean jails are full from drug offenders and guns get the blame?