'The' Gun Thread (Page 27)

And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns.

Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem.

And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths.

But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right.

And they'll be a complete waste of time without medical history to check for possible mental issues.  Even then their worth is dubious....go check the stats on how many guns used in crimes are purchased legally.  Another "feel good" regulation that won't change a single thing the proponents think it will.

The thing that troubles me is with all of the gun laws on the books now I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a felon to own or poses a firearm and it's illegal to sell or give a felon a firearm. Why not just enforce that law.

Why not enforce the laws on the books now.

There is little to no "crime reduction" or "gun violence" reduction with this proposed legislation. As someone on MSNBC openly admits it's just a first step.

The thing that troubles me is with all of the gun laws on the books now I'm pretty sure it's illegal for a felon to own or poses a firearm and it's illegal to sell or give a felon a firearm. Why not just enforce that law.

Why not enforce the laws on the books now.

There is little to no "crime reduction" or "gun violence" reduction with this proposed legislation. As someone on MSNBC openly admits it's just a first step.

That's exactly why we need to close the Gun Show Loop Hole.  So the bad guys CAN'T buy them legally. 

  This thing is gonna pass the Senate.  Along party line or not-who cares.  The 'nayes' will have to answer to their voters back home.  The NRA and gun lobbys are not the only players with money to spend these days.  Our elected officials want nothing but to be our RE-elected officials.  They are gonna move to where the money is; if that's Gabby Giffords moeny, So Be It.

That's exactly why we need to close the Gun Show Loop Hole.  So the bad guys CAN'T buy them legally. 

  This thing is gonna pass the Senate.  Along party line or not-who cares.  The 'nayes' will have to answer to their voters back home.  The NRA and gun lobbys are not the only players with money to spend these days.  Our elected officials want nothing but to be our RE-elected officials.  They are gonna move to where the money is; if that's Gabby Giffords moeny, So Be It.

You are kidding right? How exactly does a criminal buy a gun "legally". Can you explain the "Gun Show Loop Hole"?

I'm still unclear...you say "responsible gun owner" what in your definition is "responsible?"

Additionally, huge difference between negligence and reckless...typically in the US you cannot criminalize simple negligence...even in laws that criminalize negligence it is not simple negligence but rather gross negligence.  So people actually don't go to jail for simple negligence...

In CA if there is no FFL transfer it's not a legal sale.

It is?  Why?  Do you have some data that shows those guns from private sales are used in alot of crime?  Do you think that making background checks mandatory that people will quit selling/buying/trading guns amongst themselves? 

Can you explain exactly what you hope will be accomplished with background checks? ....or the closure of any "loophole"?

To those of you who are in favor of background checks, and because of that believe that the Schumer "background check" bill should be passed, I have a question for you: Have you read the bill?

This bill isn't just "back ground checks", it isn't just "closing the gun show loop hole"  Read it...  It is far more intrusive.  It would require back ground checks in situations that there isn't a sale, but a temporary transfer or lending.  Read the bill...don't simply take the word of the press, the congress people promoting or opposing the bill, or me.  Read it....

Personally I find the bill overly broad and intrusive.  To me it appears that this "background check" bill's primary purpose is to make gun ownership so onerous and inconvenient as to dissuade people from gun ownership.  (for instance under the Schumer bill if you own a firearm and you have a non-related room mate and you go on vacation for over a certain period of time and you are going to leave your firearms at your home, you would have to conduct a back ground check on your room mate.  Additionally different requirements for lending and triggering a background check depending upon where you go shooting either at a gun club or out in the woods...)

But then again, I've read the bill....