at that Randpac contribution letter. I can see the likes of DMC and CC shouting yeah as the shoot off their pistols Yosemite Sam style while pulling out their checkbooks.
lol weak sauce
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rt-verbruggen#The Washington Post reports that the White House is likely to push for universal background checks for gun buyers. This will be no panacea for gun violence, but it is probably the gun-control policy most likely to make a difference.
Under current law, licensed firearms dealers are required to run instant background checks on all buyers. However, once an individual person owns a gun, he is not required to take this precaution when selling it — it’s illegal to knowingly sell to a felon, but knowledge is not always present, and it’s hard to prove even when it is. (These private sales are what people are talking about when they refer to the “gun-show loophole.” It has nothing to do with gun shows — the same rules apply there.)
This poses obvious problems for law enforcement. The police can trace a crime gun to its original buyer — dealers are required to keep sales records for 20 years — but if that person says he sold it to a stranger through a classified ad, the trail goes dead. The precise numbers are hard to peg down, but research shows clearly that a large percentage of crime guns are procured through private transfers.
This was true even before background checks started in the 1990s. After all, it would be pretty stupid to buy a gun from a store, fill out the paperwork (which has been required at dealers since 1968), and then leave the weapon at a crime scene. Instead, criminals buy guns from other people without paperwork, have someone else fill out the paperwork and pass the check at a dealer (these “straw purchases” are a major source of weaponry for Mexican drug cartels), or steal guns.
Universal background checks would help us hold people accountable for giving guns to criminals. When the police traced a gun to the original buyer, that person could no longer simply say he didn’t have it anymore; unless he’d do ented a sale and conducted a check (or filed a police report claiming it was stolen), he could be investigated for an illegal transaction. This would make straw purchases more risky and prevent criminals from buying guns freely from private citizens.
Never read that book. Always wanted to. What was 'government officials' in his reference? The State government officials?
It seems like the founding fathers wanted more people to have guns than were allowed to vote...
presumably, but honestly, I don't know.
it would seem so. it would also seem they did not view regulation and registration as an abrogation of the right to bear arms. the right to bear and state regulation of firearms arose together.
Well for the state. With the intent that the state would know and not the federal govt. I'm assuming.
It's hard to take out all the changes from the US and try and isolate one sub-category and decide if they would have approved. I don't know if they would have approved of things that have led to what the federal government is today. 16th amendment, FBI, commerce clause, etc.
to clarify, you'd be ok with gun control at the state level?Well for the state. With the intent that the state would know and not the federal govt. I'm assuming.
for example, the new law in NY?
*crickets*
how is it confiscation, if the owner willingly hands it in? lol NRA trying to change words and putting words into ppls mouth while sugar coating it
I don't think my view is relevant but no I would go 110% trying to get out anyone who voted against law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun-concealed, open or in their home.
the SCOTUS has decided that states and cities can decide if they want to ban guns (like DC). Like imminent domain and ACA I disagree with but it is what it is.
and crickets....really?
Is that some kind of comment that I was avoiding your questions?
fair enough. that's what elections are for.
lol comically obtuse and failing... ^
can't back up your own bs or pompous verbiage, so you sling . old hat, tbh.
quality of bs counts. yours sucks.
5 hurt in shootings at gun shows in Ohio, Ind., NC
MEDINA, Ohio (AP) — Accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio left five people injured Saturday, the same day that thousands of gun advocates gathered peacefully at state capitals around the U.S. to rally against stricter firearm limits. At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, state Agriculture Department spokesman Brian Long said.
http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...tguid=cgmN0fyo
Less guns, less GUN SHOWS = LESS GUN deaths, injuries
Fellate those guns, gun-fetishists.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-20-2013 at 08:08 AM.
you got some violent fantasies. sure you're not packing?
WH
and go pack some fudge
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
