Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Wisconsin the perp was under a court order to turn in his weapons but didn't. Gee! Another non-law-abiding criminal. Guess they still haven't caught on to this whole 'Obey the law, damned criminal!" thingy.
In Columbine the killers were NOT sold weapons at a gun show. The blame there is properly laid at the feet of Robyn Anderson (aka Straw Purchaser, at least effectively.)
(Psst! Straw purchasing is against the law unless you're Eric Holder.)
I understand the guy in Wisconsin did turn in his weapons. After which he went to a gun show and bought more via the gun show loophole.
Meaning that if Massachusetts had even tougher gun laws nothing would have stopped him from getting a gun. The only people that would suffer are law abiding citizens
We are not Australia, our gun culture is much diferent. When that country robbed it's citizens of the ability to own firearms, there were far less firearms for the government to steal from it's citizens. The number of households in that country to have a firearm was somewhere around 7% I believe. The number in this country is 40+%... The two aren't even comparable, try again.
Not only that, but Australia does not afford it's citizens a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, The U.S. does. Now if you want to change the Constitution, thats another discussion, and lots of luck to you. But, until you succeed in that quest, we have a right to keep and bear arms, and it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else likes it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp
And the Sandy Hook loon's guns were obtained legally.)?
When was theft of a firearm made legal? I didn't get the memo. Last I checked it was a federal offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp
She got 'em legally. Again, your point?
.
"She" got them legaly, yes, and "she" isn't the one who commited the crime either. The killer, her son, stole the firearms, because thats what criminals do, they steal their guns and break laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It is also the easiest way to get a hold of one, because the seller is not required to verify your home state. This is actually something that a background check requirment would slow down, because the seller would have to complete the transaction at a local dealer who would run the background check.
And what if all the dealers, who are private business owners, refuse to do the background check? They have every right to refuse you knowm because they are private business owners.
How about if we just prevent it in the first place by having universal background checks in all states.
Sounds like a good idea. I tell ya what, you show me a way to enforce this law and I'll support it. The thing is, nobody knows who owns what guns. If you pass a universal background check law, so what? If I am so inclined, I can still sell a gun to anyone I want and do it without going and doing a background check. No one would know I had owned that particular gun, so, I wouldn't be held responsible for selling it to someone without a background check.
The argument isn't against the idea of doing a simple background check, the argument is the enforcability of it. There is no way to do it, and only people who decide to follow the law will be bound by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
That and the NRA runs this country.
The NRA runs nothing. Last I checked, the NRA doesn't get a vote in congress. The NRA does have a strong member base, and it's members do get a vote and politicians know this, and that is why the NRA is such a strong voice in this debate. But, that shouldn't matter because according to you liberals, 90% of NRA members supported these laws to right? LOL, keep trusting your congered up fake numbers. If 90% of the people wanted this to pass, it would have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
A complete gun ownership database along with associated liability, might cut down on some of the selling out of trunks..
Maybe, but I think it would do far more harm than good. Not only would we have to worry about the govrnment having a shopping list of guns to confiscate, but we'd also have to worry about some uppety liberal posting the names and adresses of legal gun owners in some news paper if they felt so inclined, letting the criminals know exactly what houses to hit if they want to be able to steal guns, or, what houses to hit if they don't want to worry about being confronted with a gun by a homeowner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
No need. As it stands now, a criminal can buy a gun in broad daylight with cash and a handshake.
A criminal can't buy it legaly. It's already against the law for a criminal to posses a firearm. Isn't that shocking that they still get them with no problem? It also wouldn't stop irresponsible gun owners from ignoring the law and selling to a criminal without the background check.
Who would have imagined a couple folks who didn't have gun permits would have guns. I can't believe it myself. No word on whether they had bomb permits or not. Stupid liberals.
"CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.
Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.
He says it's unclear whether either ever applied and the applications aren't considered public records.
But he says the 19-year-old Dzhokhar (joh-KHAR') would have been denied a permit because of his age. Only people 21 or older are allowed gun licenses in Massachusetts."
Australia does not have a Second Amendment, nor is their Parliament limited in its scope of power. Australia does not acknowledge any individual rights. Clearly the founding Australians did not have the foresight the founders of the US had.
Australia does not have a Second Amendment, nor is their Parliament limited in its scope of power. Australia does not acknowledge any individual rights. Clearly the founding Australians did not have the foresight the founders of the US had.
I have been to Australia, very nice reasonable people although the ban on guns didn't go over well with some residents. They don't worry about an opressive government and they seem quite happy with their elected officials and their government in general. What rights do we have that they don't other than gun ownership.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
