Sussex county NY man and his weaponry, Nazi paraphernalia

[morgan]

Damn. Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

[DSamuels]

There you go again.

Background checks are done on every single purchase from a gun store or dealer. They are also done on some, not all private sales. If a gun store or dealer does not follow federal law and do background check they will lose their license.

No Federal license = No gun selling business = No $$$$

But then you don’t remember or believe this, even though you have been told many times by many people over the years.

I know!!!
That’s what occurs to me every time someone spews that “ criminals will always get guns” argument.

Guns are way too available and people just want to sell them and make money.
The background check issue is another ridiculous argument- they’re so often incomplete or missing but some people insist that they’re always done. Nope.

That’s the dumbest argument ever.
So let’s not have laws at all, since criminals will always find ways to break them. We might as way go easy on rape, because someone will find a way to do it anyway.

If anything, this shows that gun control is so lax that it’s so easy to find a whole arsenal of illegal ones. If laws were stronger, he probably wouldn’t find it so easy to have all those guns, not to mention grenades.

When “gun control laws” really is just a background check on records, it’s so easy for everybody to get one. It’s not that hard to jump that little hurdle. If gun control meant stricter background checks, including checking those people close to the one requesting permission, if there was a ban on assault weapons, if there was an inspection at the person’s property before granting permission, then it would also make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.

Actually it's not his 2nd amendment right - he was a felon who had the weapons illegally. He had weapons that are already considered illegal on their own. This is just an example of how criminals do not follow the laws and will find a way to obtain weapons. Always.

[DSamuels]

I missed it, where did someone say we don’t need laws at all?

And home inspections to buy a gun? Really? What purpose would that serve, who is going to do the inspection and who will pay for it? Does every store have to hire someone to go do home inspections? That would stop criminals?

How many people who should not legally be able to purchase guns get their guns legally and go through a background check? I would say it’s very close to 1% or less. They may become criminals AFTER they legally purchase a gun, but then the gun is not an illegally purchased gun.

No one is saying get rid of laws, they are saying enforce the ones we have instead of adding new ones to be ignored.

That’s the dumbest argument ever.
So let’s not have laws at all, since criminals will always find ways to break them. We might as way go easy on rape, because someone will find a way to do it anyway.

If anything, this shows that gun control is so lax that it’s so easy to find a whole arsenal of illegal ones. If laws were stronger, he probably wouldn’t find it so easy to have all those guns, not to mention grenades.

When “gun control laws” really is just a background check on records, it’s so easy for everybody to get one. It’s not that hard to jump that little hurdle. If gun control meant stricter background checks, including checking those people close to the one requesting permission, if there was a ban on assault weapons, if there was an inspection at the person’s property before granting permission, then it would also make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.

Actually it's not his 2nd amendment right - he was a felon who had the weapons illegally. He had weapons that are already considered illegal on their own. This is just an example of how criminals do not follow the laws and will find a way to obtain weapons. Always.

[Deleted User 1344]

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/59154927 ... und-checks

There you go again.

Background checks are done on every single purchase from a gun store or dealer. They are also done on some, not all private sales. If a gun store or dealer does not follow federal law and do background check they will lose their license.

No Federal license = No gun selling business = No $$$$

But then you don’t remember or believe this, even though you have been told many times by many people over the years.

I know!!!
That’s what occurs to me every time someone spews that “ criminals will always get guns” argument.

Guns are way too available and people just want to sell them and make money.
The background check issue is another ridiculous argument- they’re so often incomplete or missing but some people insist that they’re always done. Nope.

That’s the dumbest argument ever.
So let’s not have laws at all, since criminals will always find ways to break them. We might as way go easy on rape, because someone will find a way to do it anyway.

If anything, this shows that gun control is so lax that it’s so easy to find a whole arsenal of illegal ones. If laws were stronger, he probably wouldn’t find it so easy to have all those guns, not to mention grenades.

When “gun control laws” really is just a background check on records, it’s so easy for everybody to get one. It’s not that hard to jump that little hurdle. If gun control meant stricter background checks, including checking those people close to the one requesting permission, if there was a ban on assault weapons, if there was an inspection at the person’s property before granting permission, then it would also make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.

[Momto2boys973]

I guessed I missed something too... where did I quote you at all?

I missed it, where did someone say we don’t need laws at all?

And home inspections to buy a gun? Really? What purpose would that serve, who is going to do the inspection and who will pay for it? Does every store have to hire someone to go do home inspections? That would stop criminals?

How many people who should not legally be able to purchase guns get their guns legally and go through a background check? I would say it’s very close to 1% or less. They may become criminals AFTER they legally purchase a gun, but then the gun is not an illegally purchased gun.

No one is saying get rid of laws, they are saying enforce the ones we have instead of adding new ones to be ignored.

That’s the dumbest argument ever.
So let’s not have laws at all, since criminals will always find ways to break them. We might as way go easy on rape, because someone will find a way to do it anyway.

If anything, this shows that gun control is so lax that it’s so easy to find a whole arsenal of illegal ones. If laws were stronger, he probably wouldn’t find it so easy to have all those guns, not to mention grenades.

When “gun control laws” really is just a background check on records, it’s so easy for everybody to get one. It’s not that hard to jump that little hurdle. If gun control meant stricter background checks, including checking those people close to the one requesting permission, if there was a ban on assault weapons, if there was an inspection at the person’s property before granting permission, then it would also make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.

Actually it's not his 2nd amendment right - he was a felon who had the weapons illegally. He had weapons that are already considered illegal on their own. This is just an example of how criminals do not follow the laws and will find a way to obtain weapons. Always.

[DSamuels]

Which is exactly what I told you. What are you trying to prove with that article?

The only sales without a background check are private sales in SOME states, not all private sales.

ALL sales from a dealer require and received a background check. 90% of those get an immediate approval from the federal database. If there is no immediate approval there is a 3 day wait. At the end of that time if the dealer has not heard it is his/her decision whether or not to proceed with the sale, legally.

Your article didn’t contradict anything I said.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/59154927 ... und-checks

There you go again.

Background checks are done on every single purchase from a gun store or dealer. They are also done on some, not all private sales. If a gun store or dealer does not follow federal law and do background check they will lose their license.

No Federal license = No gun selling business = No $$$$

But then you don’t remember or believe this, even though you have been told many times by many people over the years.

I know!!!
That’s what occurs to me every time someone spews that “ criminals will always get guns” argument.

Guns are way too available and people just want to sell them and make money.
The background check issue is another ridiculous argument- they’re so often incomplete or missing but some people insist that they’re always done. Nope.

[DSamuels]

You didn’t. I quoted you to ask you and find out who was saying we don’t need laws at all.

I guess I missed the memo that says we aren’t allowed to quote people and ask them questions until they quote us first.

I guessed I missed something too... where did I quote you at all?

I missed it, where did someone say we don’t need laws at all?

And home inspections to buy a gun? Really? What purpose would that serve, who is going to do the inspection and who will pay for it? Does every store have to hire someone to go do home inspections? That would stop criminals?

How many people who should not legally be able to purchase guns get their guns legally and go through a background check? I would say it’s very close to 1% or less. They may become criminals AFTER they legally purchase a gun, but then the gun is not an illegally purchased gun.

No one is saying get rid of laws, they are saying enforce the ones we have instead of adding new ones to be ignored.

That’s the dumbest argument ever.
So let’s not have laws at all, since criminals will always find ways to break them. We might as way go easy on rape, because someone will find a way to do it anyway.

If anything, this shows that gun control is so lax that it’s so easy to find a whole arsenal of illegal ones. If laws were stronger, he probably wouldn’t find it so easy to have all those guns, not to mention grenades.

When “gun control laws” really is just a background check on records, it’s so easy for everybody to get one. It’s not that hard to jump that little hurdle. If gun control meant stricter background checks, including checking those people close to the one requesting permission, if there was a ban on assault weapons, if there was an inspection at the person’s property before granting permission, then it would also make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.

[morgan]

They are so bad at attempting to twist shit and rewriting what you say.

I missed it, where did someone say we don’t need laws at all?

And home inspections to buy a gun? Really? What purpose would that serve, who is going to do the inspection and who will pay for it? Does every store have to hire someone to go do home inspections? That would stop criminals?

How many people who should not legally be able to purchase guns get their guns legally and go through a background check? I would say it’s very close to 1% or less. They may become criminals AFTER they legally purchase a gun, but then the gun is not an illegally purchased gun.

No one is saying get rid of laws, they are saying enforce the ones we have instead of adding new ones to be ignored.

That’s the dumbest argument ever.
So let’s not have laws at all, since criminals will always find ways to break them. We might as way go easy on rape, because someone will find a way to do it anyway.

If anything, this shows that gun control is so lax that it’s so easy to find a whole arsenal of illegal ones. If laws were stronger, he probably wouldn’t find it so easy to have all those guns, not to mention grenades.

When “gun control laws” really is just a background check on records, it’s so easy for everybody to get one. It’s not that hard to jump that little hurdle. If gun control meant stricter background checks, including checking those people close to the one requesting permission, if there was a ban on assault weapons, if there was an inspection at the person’s property before granting permission, then it would also make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.

Actually it's not his 2nd amendment right - he was a felon who had the weapons illegally. He had weapons that are already considered illegal on their own. This is just an example of how criminals do not follow the laws and will find a way to obtain weapons. Always.

[morgan]

Well if those are the rules you abide by kindly please never quote me again thanks.

I guessed I missed something too... where did I quote you at all?

I missed it, where did someone say we don’t need laws at all?

And home inspections to buy a gun? Really? What purpose would that serve, who is going to do the inspection and who will pay for it? Does every store have to hire someone to go do home inspections? That would stop criminals?

How many people who should not legally be able to purchase guns get their guns legally and go through a background check? I would say it’s very close to 1% or less. They may become criminals AFTER they legally purchase a gun, but then the gun is not an illegally purchased gun.

No one is saying get rid of laws, they are saying enforce the ones we have instead of adding new ones to be ignored.

That’s the dumbest argument ever.
So let’s not have laws at all, since criminals will always find ways to break them. We might as way go easy on rape, because someone will find a way to do it anyway.

If anything, this shows that gun control is so lax that it’s so easy to find a whole arsenal of illegal ones. If laws were stronger, he probably wouldn’t find it so easy to have all those guns, not to mention grenades.

When “gun control laws” really is just a background check on records, it’s so easy for everybody to get one. It’s not that hard to jump that little hurdle. If gun control meant stricter background checks, including checking those people close to the one requesting permission, if there was a ban on assault weapons, if there was an inspection at the person’s property before granting permission, then it would also make it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns.

[Momto2boys973]

Well, pro-gunners use that argument a lot, don’t they?
How do you interpret a comment directed at someone know for her strong gun control ideas that says “well, look! Criminals get guns anyway!” if not to suggest that we shouldn’t have stricter laws regarding guns? And if the argument against stricter laws is that “criminals will do it anyway”, then why don’t we apply that same argument to other things?

So maybe YOU want to answer the question... if a strict gun control is pointless because criminals will get guns anyway, can’t we use that argument for illegal immigration? Why have stricter laws, higher walls or more border patrol if immigrants will find a way to get in?
That’s the only question I asked and that hasn’t been answered by anyone. Maybe you’d like to do it for them.

You didn’t. I quoted you to ask you and find out who was saying we don’t need laws at all.

I guess I missed the memo that says we aren’t allowed to quote people and ask them questions until they quote us first.

I guessed I missed something too... where did I quote you at all?

I missed it, where did someone say we don’t need laws at all?

And home inspections to buy a gun? Really? What purpose would that serve, who is going to do the inspection and who will pay for it? Does every store have to hire someone to go do home inspections? That would stop criminals?

How many people who should not legally be able to purchase guns get their guns legally and go through a background check? I would say it’s very close to 1% or less. They may become criminals AFTER they legally purchase a gun, but then the gun is not an illegally purchased gun.

No one is saying get rid of laws, they are saying enforce the ones we have instead of adding new ones to be ignored.