Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-15-2013, 11:06 PM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,929,155 times
Reputation: 6763

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Again, these criminals have easy access to new guns without background checks due to the "gun show loophole". Closing it makes it much harder to acquire weapons, and a registry system then allows us to see the last owners of the guns, which helps track down the people selling them, those guns.

As I previously stated, many gop folks here have no problem requiring people who look like illegal immigrants to show I'd when asked, the saying is "if they aren't breaking the law". 90% of Americans say, if you aren't breaking the law, what's the harm with submitting to a background check when you want to buy a gun? Even from your neighbor.
UMMM, are you serious here who was selling guns to people in Fast & Furious???? You actually believe criminals buy guns at gun shows?

If you buy from a dealer at a gun show that has an FFL, they have to run a background check, I don't believe you can sell a gun unless you have this license. So, show me the loophole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2013, 11:07 PM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,929,155 times
Reputation: 6763
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2013, 11:07 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,190,568 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Again, these criminals have easy access to new guns without background checks due to the "gun show loophole". Closing it makes it much harder to acquire weapons, and a registry system then allows us to see the last owners of the guns, which helps track down the people selling them, those guns.

As I previously stated, many gop folks here have no problem requiring people who look like illegal immigrants to show I'd when asked, the saying is "if they aren't breaking the law". 90% of Americans say, if you aren't breaking the law, what's the harm with submitting to a background check when you want to buy a gun? Even from your neighbor.


if you buy from a dealer that has an FFl, you get a background check. please prove your gunshow loopholes from FFL dealers at gun shows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 12:30 AM
 
198 posts, read 167,489 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Again, no one is seriously suggesting taking all guns from civilians. The supreme court says they can legally limit magazine sizes, but you can't be kept from owning a handgun or shotgun in your home.

However, a background check for you when you buy it from your local gun dealer, or your uncle, isn't being overly aggressive or limiting your constitutional rights.
No one is suggesting they take away all guns this time around. But if we cave this time they will impose more restrictions and ban more guns. Its just a matter of time before they take them all if we open the door to let them start taking them a little at a time now.

Court Opinion is easily over turned by future justices so the idea that guns will never be banned because a judge says so is a grandiose delusion.

Back ground checks on private sales: who is going to pay for it? Some places charge $125 to run a NICS check. Are the FBI going to open their NICS system to all internet users so anyone can run a back ground check when ever they need to w/o having to drive 20 miles to a dealer to have one ran on a potential buyer? Not likely. Are they going to mandate registration to be able to enforce a private sale back ground check requirement and monitor gun ownership annually to ensure compliance? Are they going to mandate warrantless illegal house to house searches to verify all weapons have been registered? Do you really want to start the second revolutionary war by violating peoples rights beyond what is already being done?

There are no limits or restrictions in the 2nd Amendment and the term "Arms" is all encompassing. Not just muskets but any and all weapons comparable to anything Governments have at their disposal. Not just our Government but that of any nation who may attempt an invasion. Take a look at the opinion of one of our founding fathers;

Quote:
AUTHOR: George Washington (1732–99)
QUOTATION: It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency,…
Now the AR15 rifle is the civilian version of the military's M16, and these are "Uniform Arms" and according to Washington we should be "so far accustomed to the use of them". And if the AR15 is banned then how can we be accustomed to the use of uniform arms as recommended by George Washington? Or do you suggest we disarm the military and the National Guard and the Militia Reserves (US citizens), and supply everyone with smooth bore muskets with bayonets and Cannons as were the weapon of Washington's day? If that is where you think the civilian population should be then that is exactly where the military should be as well. But then we would have a mighty difficult time repelling insurrection and invasion.

You can not selectively ignore constitutional rights because they happen to be an inconvenience for you today and tomorrow defend the ones you like when your own rights to life, liberty or property are about to be violated. If you can't defend them all you deserve none of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 12:37 AM
 
198 posts, read 167,489 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Gun Background Checks Supported By More Than 90 Percent: Poll

Again, background checks, for person to person sale is legal if passed, and it doesn't matter if you care or not. It won't stop you from buying guns, from a dealer or your neighbor. But if you buy that gun, without a background check, it is then illegal.
Polling the North-east quarter of the US does not constitute 90% of the total population of the USA. Nobody called me to ask my opinion or anyone else in my family for that matter. So pull another worthless statistic out of your butt and try again.

Oh and what if I build my own guns in my garage machine shop, should I give myself a background check before I build it? Will that be considered an illegal firearm if I don't?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 12:39 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,190,568 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
90% of the population disagrees with you. To quote a founding father, a government not representative of the governed will not long stand. 90% is a pretty significant percentage of the governed


90% of the people? what a crock. it is just a poll. I can do a poll where I live and get 99% of the people to say that the feds should not even be making laws at all towards firearms.

to quote you, 99% is a pretty significant number and more than your 90%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 06:50 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,980,650 times
Reputation: 7502
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
I guess there were most likely some many cops around and dash cams buzzing they didn't even have time to plant a gun on the folks they killed. The article states one third of the police force on that night, 115 officers, took part in chasing that one car. They didn't rule out that they could have had a gun at some point during the chase though. lol

"CLEVELAND, Ohio — A November car chase ended in a "full blown-out" firefight, with glass and bullets flying, according to Cleveland police officers who described for investigators the chaotic scene at the end of the deadly 25-minute pursuit.

But when the smoky haze -- caused by rapid fire of nearly 140 bullets in less than 30 seconds -- dissipated, it soon became clear that more than a dozen officers had been firing at one another across a middle school parking lot in East Cleveland.

Soon after the shooting stopped, one officer rushed to check the two occupants of the 1979 Chevrolet Malibu that the cadre of Cleveland cruisers had followed into the lot.

Officer Wilfredo Diaz, a former city EMS worker, had fired the first shots at the Malibu after bailing out of his car.
He felt for passenger Malissa Williams' pulse.
There wasn't one.
Diaz moved Williams' leg slightly to look for a gun.
Again, there wasn't one.
Dead next to Williams in the driver's seat was Timothy Russell, 43.

No officers were injured."

Apparently they need some time on the range too.

Cleveland police chase and shooting portrayed as chaotic scene by Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (video) | cleveland.com
This has been quite the controversy here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,069,526 times
Reputation: 3954
Nobody believes only police should have guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,375,785 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
if you buy from a dealer that has an FFl, you get a background check. please prove your gunshow loopholes from FFL dealers at gun shows.
The gun show loophole is individual to individual sale. As I explained earlier, its you buying a gun, with background check, then selling it to the guy in the parking lot, no background check.

Its called gun show loophole, because this happens regularly at gun shows. Out of 500 vendors, many aren't federally licensed dealers. I know, two friends of mine are federally licensed dealers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,436,896 times
Reputation: 27720
I keep reading about comparisons to other countries that have banned guns.
Ok but in those countries the police don't have guns either.

In Britain the police are being stabbed to death with knives.
Crime and death will not disappear with guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top