[sean8642 77]

“It’s only common sense that felons who couldn’t pass a background check in a gun store shouldn’t be able to walk into a gun show and buy a deadly weapon,” Reid said.

Erica Lafferty, the daughter of Dawn Lafferty, the principal who was died trying to defend her Sandy Hook students, described her anger and frustration to CNN : The next time there’s a mass shooting and they’re asked what they did to prevent it, they’re going to have to say nothing.

 

Just for reference: The proposal would have expanded background checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting personal transactions. The amendment was aimed at winning over reluctant conservatives, who were opposed to the more stringent background check plan in the existing bill.

________________________________________________________________

Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday.

__________________________________________________________________

James Holmes purchased a Smith and Wesson .233 high powered semi-automatic rifle at Gander Mountain gun store in Thornton, Colo, according to the law enforcement source. He also bought a .40 caliber Glock pistol at Gander Mountain gun store in Aurora, Colo. Another .40 caliber glock handgun and a Remington 870 shotgun were purchased at Bass Pro Shops in Denver, Colo.

___________________________________________________________________

Despite evidence that Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner is mentally unstable, he was never declared mentally unfit by a court, so his name did not appear in the federal background-check database used by gun sellers.

A store selling firearms is required to check with NICS before making a sale. In Mr. Loughner’s case, when the 22-year-old went to the Sportsman’s Warehouse outlet in Tucson, Ariz., on Nov. 30 to purchase a Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun, a background check was performed and he came up clear, according to the store manager.

__________________________________________________________________

Seung-Hui Cho ordered the first gun - a .22-caliber Walther - on Feb. 2, 2007, online at www.thegunsource.com. The Web site is run by TGSCOM, the same company that sold two Glock magazines to the ex-student who killed five on the Northern Illinois campus last month.

Firearms can be purchased over the Internet from across the country as long as they're shipped to a licensed dealer. When buyers pick up weapons, they must present an ID, proof of residency and fill out two forms - one state and one federal - that the dealer uses to run mandatory background checks.

Cho had the Walther shipped to a Blacksburg pawnbroker. All the required steps were taken. No red flags turned up. Following Virginia's one-handgun-a-month law, Cho waited until March 13 to pick out a 9 mm Glock 19 at Roanoke Firearms. Again, he passed the background check.

____________________________________________________________________

Can anyone tell me which previous mass murder would have been prevented by that bill if it were in place at the time? Hmm, none you say?

Edited April 23, 2013 by sean8642

[thebuns1 4,323]

People with bad intentions will do shit regardless of what the laws say. The best way to counter these acts is with more guns. The greater the risk of them being shot before they do more damage, the better off we'll all be.

[haugpatr 972]

People like Erica Lafferty need to go to hell! Just because her mother died does not mean I need to give up my rights. It is unfortunate that her mom died, but I am not going to let her off the hook for it! Next time something like this happens she needs to be blamed for advocating something that will do nothing to prevent these things instead of advocating for guns in schools which actually have a chance at stopping the violence.

 

She can fuck off!

 

Rant over.

[Remek 771]

^^^ bingo

[menace667 194]

It amazes me how someone has a family member killed by a gun and all of a sudden guns are evil, but if someone whose mom was killed in a car wreck wanted them banned people would laugh and ignore them.

 

It was admitted that no law would have stopped any of the mass shootings. Just like 9/11, boston bombing, oklahoma bombing, and every other tragedy that has happened to our country, as long as there are people there will be violence. Making the majority of the population easier targets doesnt do anything to prevent it either.

[termite 463]

I didn't know that I could purchase a gun on the internet and not have to have a back ground check. Everyone that I've "purchased" on the net, ALWAYS went straight to my dealer for transfer. That must be a loophole I haven't heard of.

[Remek 771]

^^^^ its amazing how they twist the words, isnt it. Even when they describe your local FFL, they only say a few forms are filled out. They dont tell the reader its the same check.

[Lone Eagle 839]

Even at teh gun shows here, they suggest you have an FFL do a check. Back in Alabama, there would be an off-duty LEO who'd simply call in a record's check for you for $10(money went to the crime victim's fund). If the buyer came back clean, then the FTF was GTG.

 

Now you know why we call them Libtards: cross between Liberal(progressive) and Retard. Libtards have mutated to the point they are beyond help.

[mancat 2,368]

Good luck. Most people think you can have an AR-15 delivered to your door and refuse to be told otherwise. Asked how "universal" background checks will solve this problem, given that most recent shooters passed one without issue, their answer is "if it saves just one life, let's do it" - but nobody can prove that any of this will save a life; why not ban cigarettes?

 

Don't even bother trying to explain the concept of private sales, or how these laws are intended to eliminate them, and introduce the framework for registration. Their eyes will glaze over at this point, because they have no idea what you mean. Even if they did, they wouldn't care. If they do care, they only "care" in terms of believing that you are a paranoid anti-government person, and making a mental note to not trust you with their children, or maybe even their dog.

[Big John! 2,062]

I'm gonna stick my neck out on the chopping block here and have a double flame suit on.

 

My opinion: The only thing that I can see that would help reduce gun violence as far as new legislation is concerned is... Making FTF transactions require going through an FFL. The problem with bills such as this is that they carry it too far and start infringing on rights. If they would SIMPLY close this avenue and NOTHING more, it would probably be well recieved by even hard core gun owners and might actually make a difference if properly enforced. Again... All sales FFL. Only non FFL is to immediate family. Not friends and neighbors. No registration. No keeping paperwork for years for the FFL. No other BS. This seems so simple to me.

 

Ok... Go ahead and fire at will

[mancat 2,368]

you just exposed your entire internet ballsack

 

edit: I mean, you whipped out your balls with best intentions, but they're still out there. someone might kick 'em.

Edited April 24, 2013 by mancat

[haugpatr 972]

I'm gonna stick my neck out on the chopping block here and have a double flame suit on.

 

My opinion: The only thing that I can see that would help reduce gun violence as far as new legislation is concerned is... Making FTF transactions require going through an FFL. The problem with bills such as this is that they carry it too far and start infringing on rights. If they would SIMPLY close this avenue and NOTHING more, it would probably be well recieved by even hard core gun owners and might actually make a difference if properly enforced. Again... All sales FFL. Only non FFL is to immediate family. Not friends and neighbors. No registration. No keeping paperwork for years for the FFL. No other BS. This seems so simple to me.

 

Ok... Go ahead and fire at will

 

You really aren't this stupid are you?

 

If every transfer goes though an FFL all guns are efectively registered. Do I need to explain what happens after this?

[Ronin38 2,117]

Can anyone tell me which previous mass murder would have been prevented by that bill if it were in place at the time? Hmm, none you say?

 

Hey now! Don't try inserting your FACTS into this argument! They only get in the way!

 

As we were saying, we're going to make background checks mandatory at all FFL's and gun shows. If it's just a sale between two people, then no check is needed. Perfect!

 

(sshhhhh... Don't tell them that's how it works NOW, and what they're talking about changes NOTHING.)

[Big John! 2,062]

Deleted.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Big John!

[sean8642 77]

I'm gonna stick my neck out on the chopping block here and have a double flame suit on.

 

My opinion: The only thing that I can see that would help reduce gun violence as far as new legislation is concerned is... Making FTF transactions require going through an FFL. The problem with bills such as this is that they carry it too far and start infringing on rights. If they would SIMPLY close this avenue and NOTHING more, it would probably be well recieved by even hard core gun owners and might actually make a difference if properly enforced. Again... All sales FFL. Only non FFL is to immediate family. Not friends and neighbors. No registration. No keeping paperwork for years for the FFL. No other BS. This seems so simple to me.

 

Ok... Go ahead and fire at will

Ok, and how does this prevent any of the tragedies I posted about? If our main reliance to prevent gun crime is background checks and they don't work for some of the worst cases we have seen, what good is expanding them doing other than covering up an underlying problem?

[Remek 771]

I'm gonna stick my neck out on the chopping block here and have a double flame suit on.

 

My opinion: The only thing that I can see that would help reduce gun violence as far as new legislation is concerned is... Making FTF transactions require going through an FFL. The problem with bills such as this is that they carry it too far and start infringing on rights. If they would SIMPLY close this avenue and NOTHING more, it would probably be well recieved by even hard core gun owners and might actually make a difference if properly enforced. Again... All sales FFL. Only non FFL is to immediate family. Not friends and neighbors. No registration. No keeping paperwork for years for the FFL. No other BS. This seems so simple to me.

 

Ok... Go ahead and fire at will

 

John:

 

You are right in the idea, but I do agree with Hog on the implementation.

 

I myself am not against all FTF transfers which are not friend/relative to go through a NICS check. There is no reason it cannot be done by internet, or a call-in like the police officer above. It is the best way to clean up any problems caused by the sale of firearms by good people. I think anyone can see this as a great solution in theory.

 

The problem is implementation. When our government is already known to be photocopying every 4473 form of FFLs in multiple instances and replying to FFLs who question the legality of it "What are you going to do about it?" we have jack booted thugs who are, in all reasonable minds, constructing a registry. All of this is already occurring DESPITE a law that says they cannot construct a registry already on the books.

 

If we then add EVERY firearm into that registry by causing all transfers to go that route, we have no protection from our government, and we have a registry.

 

This is exacerbated by Obama who is in agreement to the UN Small Arms Treaty, which requires such a registry.

 

Now we have two indicia of a Government that wants to register our firearms.

 

So, while the theory of it is fantastic, do you really trust your government to allow them this law? In end, Hog is right (despite his down-the-nose demeanor), we cannot trust them with the tools to create a registry of all our firearms, because they will. And if they make a registry, its only a matter of time until they decide to use it. History has already proven that part.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Remek

[Big John! 2,062]

I'm gonna stick my neck out on the chopping block here and have a double flame suit on.

 

My opinion: The only thing that I can see that would help reduce gun violence as far as new legislation is concerned is... Making FTF transactions require going through an FFL. The problem with bills such as this is that they carry it too far and start infringing on rights. If they would SIMPLY close this avenue and NOTHING more, it would probably be well recieved by even hard core gun owners and might actually make a difference if properly enforced. Again... All sales FFL. Only non FFL is to immediate family. Not friends and neighbors. No registration. No keeping paperwork for years for the FFL. No other BS. This seems so simple to me.

 

Ok... Go ahead and fire at will

 

I'm sorry for being a name calling dick.

 

If every transfer goes though an FFL all guns are efectively registered. Do I need to explain what happens after this?

I've been up for a lot of hours plowing snow so please bear with me. I hadn't thought of it as registration. In a perfect world with normal people in government, could this not be required to go through an FFL as a simple yes or no with no other info passed. I know this would have some pitfalls that I'm probably not considering, but I see this as a huge problem that is in the end getting blamed on law abiding citizens.

[Remek 771]

I'm gonna stick my neck out on the chopping block here and have a double flame suit on.

 

My opinion: The only thing that I can see that would help reduce gun violence as far as new legislation is concerned is... Making FTF transactions require going through an FFL. The problem with bills such as this is that they carry it too far and start infringing on rights. If they would SIMPLY close this avenue and NOTHING more, it would probably be well recieved by even hard core gun owners and might actually make a difference if properly enforced. Again... All sales FFL. Only non FFL is to immediate family. Not friends and neighbors. No registration. No keeping paperwork for years for the FFL. No other BS. This seems so simple to me.

 

Ok... Go ahead and fire at will

Ok, and how does this prevent any of the tragedies I posted about? If our main reliance to prevent gun crime is background checks and they don't work for some of the worst cases we have seen, what good is expanding them doing other than covering up an underlying problem?

This is yet another problem. The current checks are voluntary in reporting and even if made obligatory, it would be subject to too much abuse and denials for reasons which are not reasonable. However, it is also true many checks turn up denied given what is already reported, so I'd say it would still help.

 

That does not deny the facts of my previous post above.

 

I think they should just issue gun cards, that list YES or NO, and a number to check on the net. Issue them to every person (along with a voter card for gods sake).

 

The person could simply be checked by number on the net to see if it is still valid or not, and the card cross checked with another ID, and if its good, the seller is good to go!

[Marc 147]

I'm gonna stick my neck out on the chopping block here and have a double flame suit on.

 

My opinion: The only thing that I can see that would help reduce gun violence as far as new legislation is concerned is... Making FTF transactions require going through an FFL. The problem with bills such as this is that they carry it too far and start infringing on rights. If they would SIMPLY close this avenue and NOTHING more, it would probably be well recieved by even hard core gun owners and might actually make a difference if properly enforced. Again... All sales FFL. Only non FFL is to immediate family. Not friends and neighbors. No registration. No keeping paperwork for years for the FFL. No other BS. This seems so simple to me.

 

Ok... Go ahead and fire at will

Ok, and how does this prevent any of the tragedies I posted about? If our main reliance to prevent gun crime is background checks and they don't work for some of the worst cases we have seen, what good is expanding them doing other than covering up an underlying problem?

This is yet another problem. The current checks are voluntary in reporting and even if made obligatory, it would be subject to too much abuse and denials for reasons which are not reasonable. However, it is also true many checks turn up denied given what is already reported, so I'd say it would still help.

 

That does not deny the facts of my previous post above.

 

I think they should just issue gun cards, that list YES or NO, and a number to check on the net. Issue them to every person (along with a voter card for gods sake).

 

The person could simply be checked by number on the net to see if it is still valid or not, and the card cross checked with another ID, and if its good, the seller is good to go!

 

If you want a FOID card Illinois is just up the road, and that is still a registry.

[Sdustin 578]

I think that they need to repeal the GCA 68' and allow all gun sells to be just like another item, as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a tshirt. That would mean the 2nd isn't infringed upon.

 

And all you people claim to be 2nd admendmemt supporters. Do you have to have a background check to print a news paper, do you have to have a background check to refuse an illegal search by police? People you need to read some. Start with the bill of rights and end with the federalist papers.

[dashowdy 141]

It is amazing how noone has pursued serious legislation for armed security and ccw eligibility for all full time faculty and administrators, because they dont want them to so they can let another crisis happen and use it to push the same shit over and over.

[Big John! 2,062]

I think that they need to repeal the GCA 68' and allow all gun sells to be just like another item, as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a tshirt. That would mean the 2nd isn't infringed upon.

 

And all you people claim to be 2nd admendmemt supporters. Do you have to have a background check to print a news paper, do you have to have a background check to refuse an illegal search by police? People you need to read some. Start with the bill of rights and end with the federalist papers.

I like this idea best. I was talking to an old timer last weekend who said back in his day he could buy a gun outta the newspaper. I think I looked too hard to find a realistic answer and that's just not going to happen.

 

Enforce laws already on the books.

Go to the Ghetto's. Arrest the scum.

Do away with them by whatever means you feel like.

Empty the prisons of lifers to an island and let them work it out.

This will all speak volumes to people considering a life of crime.

Problem mostly solved.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

I say Rewrite the 2nd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The right of a person to own and carry any and all arms that have ever, or will ever be used on a battlefield or their mechanical equivalents, shall never be restricted or regulated, no matter how "Common Sense" the restriction or regulation may seem. Any Legislation brought to a house or senate floor which includes any restriction or regulation of this right shall be an act of treason punishable by immediate death without trial. Such punishment may be enacted by ANY person represented by the person who introduced the legislation to the floor. This shall be a Zero tolerance policy. This amendment is enacted to allow all citizens to have equal or greater weaponry than the US government or any nation may own from the past, present, or future.

Edited April 24, 2013 by SN13