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.
That still leaves it open ended, there have been dealers that lost their licenses and converted their stock to private sales. Many private sellers claim to "know" the person on the other end when in reality they know very little. If it's not universal there will always be a way around the laws.
If it was universal there will still be ways around it.
Republicans are so anxious to block all syrian refugees from settling in their states, but they have given free reign to the NRA to wreck havoc with guns.
It was a gimme that the current state of things would see some sneaky attempts at gun control laws. The sponsors of this bill, without even reading the text of the measure, are enough to be telling as to its viability. Oh sure, it sounds great, deny firearms to terrorists. But its another gimme that's not the true objective. With such a heading, opposition can be villified, as willing to let terrorists arm rather than allow the legislation. Typical.
But denial of weapons to terrorists is not the goal. Government discretion is gun sales is. Terrorists aren't getting their weapons at Cabelas or Joes Gun Shop. As if they really want to leave a paper trail and go through a BC. Sure, our enemy if the enemy were that stupid, they would have been defeated, long hence. But, politicians like Feinstein aren't going to waste an opportunity to capitalize on fear. Fear is always a great way to grab power. Could it be more obvious?
Are you implying terror suspects should be allowed to buy guns?
So, let me get this straight. You think a new law would end terrorism, as if a terrorist who murders people, which by the way is against the law, would be stopped if he could not legally buy a gun in the US?
The terrorists in France used fully automatic AK-47s, you think they would bother to cripple themselves by only buying over the counter, semi-automatic guns?
Hey, I have an idea, make a law that says terrorists must obey our gun free zone laws. Then make illegal for terrorists to shoot people.
If we can just write enough laws, we can probably legislate terrorism out of existence.
It was a gimme that the current state of things would see some sneaky attempts at gun control laws. The sponsors of this bill, without even reading the text of the measure, are enough to be telling as to its viability. Oh sure, it sounds great, deny firearms to terrorists. But its another gimme that's not the true objective. With such a heading, opposition can be villified, as willing to let terrorists arm rather than allow the legislation. Typical.
But denial of weapons to terrorists is not the goal. Government discretion is gun sales is. Terrorists aren't getting their weapons at Cabelas or Joes Gun Shop. As if they really want to leave a paper trail and go through a BC. Sure, our enemy if the enemy were that stupid, they would have been defeated, long hence. But, politicians like Feinstein aren't going to waste an opportunity to capitalize on fear. Fear is always a great way to grab power. Could it be more obvious?
LOL very true.
Terrorists don't shop at Gander Mountain to buy their bombs, full auto AK-47's and hand grenades.
I haven't read what was in the bill, but it wasn't just a one liner bill that called for preventing Terrorists from obtaining guns.
The left likes to create titles that mask intent, or add things to bills that they now the average person would never agree to. Then cry a river if the bill is defeated.
How many spending grants would be passed on their own merit? Like 4 million to study why lesbians are obese and gay men are fit and trim?
50 G to pay for Hawaii's 2nd annual chocolate festival
75G to promote Michigan Christmas trees.
I mean the list is literally endless.
That still leaves it open ended, there have been dealers that lost their licenses and converted their stock to private sales. Many private sellers claim to "know" the person on the other end when in reality they know very little. If it's not universal there will always be a way around the laws.
As I said. You sell over X number of firearms, you are no longer a "private seller".
On line sales still require a background check unless you actually meet face to face, then it is not really an on line sale is it? The vast majority of sales at gun shows go through an ffl. Private sellers at gun shows are not very prevalent. Not to mention states that have made this practice illegal did not show any drop in crime outside of the national average.
I agree that it probably would show a minimal effect on any crime statistic, but it definitely should not be happening.
I agree that it probably would show a minimal effect on any crime statistic, but it definitely should not be happening.
If it would make no difference what is the problem?
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.
Sure, our enemy if the enemy were that stupid, they would have been defeated, long hence. But, politicians like Feinstein aren't going to waste an opportunity to capitalize on fear. Fear is always a great way to grab power. Could it be more obvious?
