Hundreds march across Brooklyn Bridge for stricter gun laws

[CMNightRider]

why am I not surprised that the whole thing was over your head.

"liberal gun nuts" ? I thought gun nuts were for the most part conservative

"if you don't like guns simple don;t own one"

it is not that I dont like guns , There is nothing to like or dislike about guns, on their own they make excellent paper weights

what I don't like is , idiots owning guns,

you know,

the kind of idiots who cant get this very simple concept.

What do you think went over my head? Was it when you stated, "to put criminals in jail you need laws making a criminal activity illegal." OMG!

OK let me spell it out for you

Those who sell guns to people with out conducting a background check, are in many cases aiding in the commission of a crime and are thus , also criminals, but the laws are not there that make this behavior a crime in every venue,

So make it illegal to sell a guns with out a background check for any reason anywhere any time, and if anyone does and get caught, pays the price.

What is so unreasonable about that

Background checks are already conducted when purchasing a firearm. After viewing many of your posts, I now believe Thai Visa should be required to conduct background checks on current and future posters for mental stability.

There are some people who do bad things with guns, and more gun laws will not stop this. However, guns protect people when law enforcement can't be there unless you live in Australia. In any crime ridden American city, order a pizza and call the police at the same time to see who shows up first.

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should ask, what are these people doing out of prison. We don't need to control guns owned by millions of law abiding people. We need to control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership. I would like to see the death penalty for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. What is so unreasonable about that?

[thaibeachlovers]

why am I not surprised that the whole thing was over your head.

"liberal gun nuts" ? I thought gun nuts were for the most part conservative

"if you don't like guns simple don;t own one"

it is not that I dont like guns , There is nothing to like or dislike about guns, on their own they make excellent paper weights

what I don't like is , idiots owning guns,

you know,

the kind of idiots who cant get this very simple concept.

What do you think went over my head? Was it when you stated, "to put criminals in jail you need laws making a criminal activity illegal." OMG!

OK let me spell it out for you

Those who sell guns to people with out conducting a background check, are in many cases aiding in the commission of a crime and are thus , also criminals, but the laws are not there that make this behavior a crime in every venue,

So make it illegal to sell a guns with out a background check for any reason anywhere any time, and if anyone does and get caught, pays the price.

What is so unreasonable about that

Background checks are already conducted when purchasing a firearm. After viewing many of your posts, I now believe Thai Visa should be required to conduct background checks on current and future posters for mental stability.

There are some people who do bad things with guns, and more gun laws will not stop this. However, guns protect people when law enforcement can't be there unless you live in Australia. In any crime ridden American city, order a pizza and call the police at the same time to see who shows up first.

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should ask, what are these people doing out of prison. We don't need to control guns owned by millions of law abiding people. We need to control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership. I would like to see the death penalty for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. What is so unreasonable about that?

I don't believe in the judicial death penalty, but certainly life without parole.

[Thakkar]

Australian comic Jim Jeffries on guns:

very funny , and so true. My favorite comedian,

I love his

Good comedy....the truth seems to be a funny thing when presented by a good comedian.

Meantime....factually, in the USA...there are a whole lot of incidents where a gun owner has protected themselves and others because they had a gun to do so.

You can look it up and there are thousands of incidents where people intent on doing harm or committing crimes were stopped by way of another citizen having a gun that stopped the crime from happening .....while often enough the criminal is dead...while the near victim(s) are alive and well.

There is a huge amount of crime going on in the USA....more than you may ever come to fathom...so, I can understand why a lot of Americans want to own a gun and protect themselves.

If you lived under such conditions you also may eventually become a gun owner for protective purposes because the social environment you live under near requires a gun to make your life safe.....it is that bad in some parts of the USA.

Meantime...stricter gun laws are not going to fix the problems in many respects concerning firearms ..but, it helps and can lessen the impact from all too many guns in the hands of the citizens, while all too many of the citizens are criminals with guns.

"there are a whole lot of incidents where a gun owner has protected themselves and others because they had a gun to do so."

It would be interesting to know if any one of those incidents would have required the use of an assault rifle with a thirty round clip--the kind of weapon most are talking about banning.

T

[stevenl]

why am I not surprised that the whole thing was over your head.

"liberal gun nuts" ? I thought gun nuts were for the most part conservative

"if you don't like guns simple don;t own one"

it is not that I dont like guns , There is nothing to like or dislike about guns, on their own they make excellent paper weights

what I don't like is , idiots owning guns,

you know,

the kind of idiots who cant get this very simple concept.

What do you think went over my head? Was it when you stated, "to put criminals in jail you need laws making a criminal activity illegal." OMG!

OK let me spell it out for you

Those who sell guns to people with out conducting a background check, are in many cases aiding in the commission of a crime and are thus , also criminals, but the laws are not there that make this behavior a crime in every venue,

So make it illegal to sell a guns with out a background check for any reason anywhere any time, and if anyone does and get caught, pays the price.

What is so unreasonable about that

Background checks are already conducted when purchasing a firearm. After viewing many of your posts, I now believe Thai Visa should be required to conduct background checks on current and future posters for mental stability.

There are some people who do bad things with guns, and more gun laws will not stop this. However, guns protect people when law enforcement can't be there unless you live in Australia. In any crime ridden American city, order a pizza and call the police at the same time to see who shows up first.

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should ask, what are these people doing out of prison. We don't need to control guns owned by millions of law abiding people. We need to control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership. I would like to see the death penalty for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. What is so unreasonable about that?

Yes, sometimes. One of the objections that pro stricter gun law advocates have against the present system is that it is easily and legally possible to buy weapons without background check.

[Publicus]

A hundred million Americans own at least one firearm yet only 5 million or maybe 6 million have taken a membership of the right wing extremist National Rifle Association, which is absolutely opposed to any or all new or amended gun legislation.

The NRA is thus a hugely funded, loud, powerful lobby in Congress against the vast majority of the American people who do support changes to existing gun laws and which advocate new gun laws to close loopholes.

The absolutist extremist NRA are strongly present wherever and whenever gun issues and laws are discussed or debated.

The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere so the far right should acknowledge the fact but it won't ever do so. Under the Second Amendment, existing gun laws need to be improved and new ones issued, that's all. It's a societal issue, not a personal one.

Individual states should regulate guns, not the federal government.

Gun worshipers in their idolatry are 100% against any amendment to any existing gun law and are 100% against any new gun laws at either the state or the federal level, respectively.

National Rifle Association and its 5 million rabid members oppose any and all gun regulation. The other 95 million gun owners in the USA accept or advocate improved gun laws and regulations.

NRA doesn't even want the states to make laws, much less the feds. This is gun worship and absolutism out of control.

The Second Amendment is in the Constitution of the United States which means the federal government has the ultimate authority over it as does SCOTUS which makes gun rulings on a consistent and regular basis. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution requires the states to yield to the feds, every time, concerning any conflict of laws, every time, so give up the ghost in this too.

[CMNightRider]

A hundred million Americans own at least one firearm yet only 5 million or maybe 6 million have taken a membership of the right wing extremist National Rifle Association, which is absolutely opposed to any or all new or amended gun legislation.

The NRA is thus a hugely funded, loud, powerful lobby in Congress against the vast majority of the American people who do support changes to existing gun laws and which advocate new gun laws to close loopholes.

The absolutist extremist NRA are strongly present wherever and whenever gun issues and laws are discussed or debated.

The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere so the far right should acknowledge the fact but it won't ever do so. Under the Second Amendment, existing gun laws need to be improved and new ones issued, that's all. It's a societal issue, not a personal one.

Individual states should regulate guns, not the federal government.

Gun worshipers in their idolatry are 100% against any amendment to any existing gun law and are 100% against any new gun laws at either the state or the federal level, respectively.

National Rifle Association and its 5 million rabid members oppose any and all gun regulation. The other 95 million gun owners in the USA accept or advocate improved gun laws and regulations.

NRA doesn't even want the states to make laws, much less the feds. This is gun worship and absolutism out of control.

The Second Amendment is in the Constitution of the United States which means the federal government has the ultimate authority over it as does SCOTUS which makes gun rulings on a consistent and regular basis. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution requires the states to yield to the feds, every time, concerning any conflict of laws, every time, so give up the ghost in this too.

I have been on this planet for over 70 years, and have never met or even heard of a person being a "gun worshiper." "The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its 5 million rabid members"??? Where did that come from, lol.

The NRA protects law abiding citizens rights, while promoting safe handling of firearms through a multitude of training opportunities and shooting competitions. There is nothing sinister about this organisation and none of their members are rabid.

[JDGRUEN]

I predicted on this forum over 3 years ago and then again more than a year ago ... That all the breast beating in the world will not change anything significantly relative to gun laws in America and ownership of guns by individual citizens. Obama could not get his version of gun control through the U.S. Senate. And it will remain that way.

Exaggeration, embellishment and outright fabrication of claims against the NRA, gun groups in general, individual gun owners, and all others who own guns will not win the day for the Leftist gun grabbers ... Americans are going to keep their guns - the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in the last few years that the 2nd Amendment applies to Americans as individuals and Americans have a right to bear arms ... and bear arms they will ..

No amount of shrillness, and clambering will change it.

Primary reason is -- Guns are owned by Americans - not primarily for sport - they are owned for self protection and above all to defend the citizenry against a rogue government that will attempt to become totalitarian.

Guns are kept as a last resort defense against a Government that works everyday to strip Americans of their rights under the Constitution ... prime example - the Obama Government.

Mark this post and read this post a year from today --- then again two years from today -- then again three years from today, etc. Nothing significant relative to gun possession will change in America.

[stevenl]

Agree that probably nothing will change. But remember that no change also means no progress. But neither is all change progress.

[Publicus]

A hundred million Americans own at least one firearm yet only 5 million or maybe 6 million have taken a membership of the right wing extremist National Rifle Association, which is absolutely opposed to any or all new or amended gun legislation.

The NRA is thus a hugely funded, loud, powerful lobby in Congress against the vast majority of the American people who do support changes to existing gun laws and which advocate new gun laws to close loopholes.

The absolutist extremist NRA are strongly present wherever and whenever gun issues and laws are discussed or debated.

The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere so the far right should acknowledge the fact but it won't ever do so. Under the Second Amendment, existing gun laws need to be improved and new ones issued, that's all. It's a societal issue, not a personal one.

Individual states should regulate guns, not the federal government.

Gun worshipers in their idolatry are 100% against any amendment to any existing gun law and are 100% against any new gun laws at either the state or the federal level, respectively.

National Rifle Association and its 5 million rabid members oppose any and all gun regulation. The other 95 million gun owners in the USA accept or advocate improved gun laws and regulations.

NRA doesn't even want the states to make laws, much less the feds. This is gun worship and absolutism out of control.

The Second Amendment is in the Constitution of the United States which means the federal government has the ultimate authority over it as does SCOTUS which makes gun rulings on a consistent and regular basis. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution requires the states to yield to the feds, every time, concerning any conflict of laws, every time, so give up the ghost in this too.

I have been on this planet for over 70 years, and have never met or even heard of a person being a "gun worshiper." "The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its 5 million rabid members"??? Where did that come from, lol.

The NRA protects law abiding citizens rights, while promoting safe handling of firearms through a multitude of training opportunities and shooting competitions. There is nothing sinister about this organisation and none of their members are rabid.

I have been on this planet for over 70 years

You aren't the only one as I'd think you'd appreciate...in contrast perhaps, I have been on this planet only for more than 70 years.

The National Rifle Association has for several score of years opposed all gun legislation absolutely and without exception whether the proposed legislation has been on the state or the federal level. That is fanaticism and it stems from an absolute worship of guns, as almost all NRA members own multiple guns, rifles and other firearms not to mention enuff rounds of ammunition to fight the Revolution again....twice more.

The other 95 million Americans who own a firearm or two do not belong to the NRA and give it the stiff arm for good reason. We are not gun worshipers nor are we fanatics against all gun legislation or amendments to existing laws, whether by the states or in Washington. We accept gun laws, rules, regulation.

To instead declare an aspect of society must be exempted from laws, rules, regulation, as the NRA does concerning guns and ammunition, is extreme, fanatical, hysterical.

[chuckd]

There are plenty of laws on the books. What is needed is enforcement of those laws.

The worst violation of the gun laws in recent memory was pulled off by former Attorney General of the US, Eric Holder, under his infamous, undocumented and ignored Fast and Furious gun running campaign.

Anybody remember that little administration scandal?

[Publicus]

There are plenty of laws on the books. What is needed is enforcement of those laws.

The worst violation of the gun laws in recent memory was pulled off by former Attorney General of the US, Eric Holder, under his infamous, undocumented and ignored Fast and Furious gun running campaign.

Anybody remember that little administration scandal?

Spending the past 60 years or so demanding no new amendments and no new laws in respect of anything flies in the face of reason...nay, slaps reason silly and gives logic a swift kick in its lower front.

Only the far right btw "remembers" Fast and Furious as something other than a Hollywood movie. How many largely unknown books by right wingers only came out on that "scandal."

The National Rifle Association mob of gun worshipers and fierce absolutists are a gang of single minded fanatics.

[sirineou]

why am I not surprised that the whole thing was over your head.

"liberal gun nuts" ? I thought gun nuts were for the most part conservative

"if you don't like guns simple don;t own one"

it is not that I dont like guns , There is nothing to like or dislike about guns, on their own they make excellent paper weights

what I don't like is , idiots owning guns,

you know,

the kind of idiots who cant get this very simple concept.

What do you think went over my head? Was it when you stated, "to put criminals in jail you need laws making a criminal activity illegal." OMG!

OK let me spell it out for you

Those who sell guns to people with out conducting a background check, are in many cases aiding in the commission of a crime and are thus , also criminals, but the laws are not there that make this behavior a crime in every venue,

So make it illegal to sell a guns with out a background check for any reason anywhere any time, and if anyone does and get caught, pays the price.

What is so unreasonable about that

Background checks are already conducted when purchasing a firearm. After viewing many of your posts, I now believe Thai Visa should be required to conduct background checks on current and future posters for mental stability.

There are some people who do bad things with guns, and more gun laws will not stop this. However, guns protect people when law enforcement can't be there unless you live in Australia. In any crime ridden American city, order a pizza and call the police at the same time to see who shows up first.

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should ask, what are these people doing out of prison. We don't need to control guns owned by millions of law abiding people. We need to control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership. I would like to see the death penalty for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. What is so unreasonable about that?

I suggest before you post or question other posters mental stability, you question yours, and do a google search on "gun background check"

"Background checks are not required under Federal law for firearm transfers between private parties"

"Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers"

PS: ​if some one want's to buy a gun for nefarious purposes and has things in his background that would prevent him from getting one if a check is conducted, do you think he would go buy the gun where a check will be done, or do you think he will go at a gun show, or buy it from a "private" individual?

[CMNightRider]

Background checks are already conducted when purchasing a firearm. After viewing many of your posts, I now believe Thai Visa should be required to conduct background checks on current and future posters for mental stability.

There are some people who do bad things with guns, and more gun laws will not stop this. However, guns protect people when law enforcement can't be there unless you live in Australia. In any crime ridden American city, order a pizza and call the police at the same time to see who shows up first.

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should ask, what are these people doing out of prison. We don't need to control guns owned by millions of law abiding people. We need to control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership. I would like to see the death penalty for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. What is so unreasonable about that?

I suggest before you post or question other posters mental stability, you question yours, and do a google search on "gun background check"

"Background checks are not required under Federal law for firearm transfers between private parties"

"Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers"

PS: ​if some one want's to buy a gun for nefarious purposes and has things in his background that would prevent him from getting one if a check is conducted, do you think he would go buy the gun where a check will be done, or do you think he will go at a gun show, or buy it from a "private" individual?

This may come as a shock to you but there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks. The only people exempt from running background checks are a small number of non-commercial sellers.

There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books. Passing more idiotic gun legislation to make whiny, liberal, anti-gun nuts feel good is a waste of time.

Every time the mere mention of guns appear in the news, whiny, liberal, anti-guns nuts, come out of the wood work hysterically ranting about more gun laws on an already heavily regulated industry, and blaming the NRA.

[Publicus]

The National Rifle Association and its 5 million members have for the past 60 years opposed in the absolute each and every bill to improve or expand regulation of firearm ownership or possession.

The NRA is just another powerful lobby in Congress that works against the wishes and the will of the vast majority of Americans. The last gun bill that also failed in the congress maximus got a majority of 54 of the 100 senators to vote for it. Yet the proposed legislation failed because it needs 60 votes in order to avoid a gun nut filibuster in the Senate.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed

"It is clear that more Americans support the concept of a law expanding background checks for gun purchases than say the Senate should have passed such a law," wrote Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, in a memo accompanying the poll results.

But opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, counted the Senate vote – which featured four Democrats joining a majority of Republicans in opposition – as a clear victory.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

[CMNightRider]

The National Rifle Association and its 5 million members have for the past 60 years opposed in the absolute each and every bill to improve or expand regulation of firearm ownership or possession.

The NRA is just another powerful lobby in Congress that works against the wishes and the will of the vast majority of Americans. The last gun bill that also failed in the congress maximus got a majority of 54 of the 100 senators to vote for it. Yet the proposed legislation failed because it needs 60 votes in order to avoid a gun nut filibuster in the Senate.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed

"It is clear that more Americans support the concept of a law expanding background checks for gun purchases than say the Senate should have passed such a law," wrote Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, in a memo accompanying the poll results.

But opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, counted the Senate vote – which featured four Democrats joining a majority of Republicans in opposition – as a clear victory.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

You are either making your statements up or you get your information from publications like Mother Jones. The NRA has worked with legislators in writing firearm laws and on occasion do oppose looney gun laws the hysterical liberal anti-gun nuts come up with.

If the whiny leftist liberals had any common sense, they would focus their attention on people who abuse the right to own a firearm, instead of being so concerned about millions of law abiding gun owners.

[Publicus]

The National Rifle Association and its 5 million members have for the past 60 years opposed in the absolute each and every bill to improve or expand regulation of firearm ownership or possession.

The NRA is just another powerful lobby in Congress that works against the wishes and the will of the vast majority of Americans. The last gun bill that also failed in the congress maximus got a majority of 54 of the 100 senators to vote for it. Yet the proposed legislation failed because it needs 60 votes in order to avoid a gun nut filibuster in the Senate.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed

"It is clear that more Americans support the concept of a law expanding background checks for gun purchases than say the Senate should have passed such a law," wrote Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, in a memo accompanying the poll results.

But opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, counted the Senate vote – which featured four Democrats joining a majority of Republicans in opposition – as a clear victory.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

You are either making your statements up or you get your information from publications like Mother Jones. The NRA has worked with legislators in writing firearm laws and on occasion do oppose looney gun laws the hysterical liberal anti-gun nuts come up with.

If the whiny leftist liberals had any common sense, they would focus their attention on people who abuse the right to own a firearm, instead of being so concerned about millions of law abiding gun owners.

The vast majority of Americans reject the claims, the presumptions, the assertions of the post.

The NRA has colluded with the congress and state legislatures to write gun laws, yes. The legislators who sit with the NRA writing new gun legislation are typically NRA members or are directed by the NRA.

The NRA will accept only the gun legislation it writes while rejecting completely and entirely gun legislation written by actual legislators.

Which is why so many of the gun laws or amendments on the books are crappy laws that are in a desperate need of being succeeded by new and comprehensive gun laws or amendments to existing laws.

We need to get the NRA out of the legislatures from Washington to California so the legislatures of the country can get out of the pockets of the NRA and the gun worshiping right wing absolutists who demand the society exempt them from gun laws, rules, regulation.

[chuckd]

The National Rifle Association and its 5 million members have for the past 60 years opposed in the absolute each and every bill to improve or expand regulation of firearm ownership or possession.

The NRA is just another powerful lobby in Congress that works against the wishes and the will of the vast majority of Americans. The last gun bill that also failed in the congress maximus got a majority of 54 of the 100 senators to vote for it. Yet the proposed legislation failed because it needs 60 votes in order to avoid a gun nut filibuster in the Senate.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed

"It is clear that more Americans support the concept of a law expanding background checks for gun purchases than say the Senate should have passed such a law," wrote Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, in a memo accompanying the poll results.

But opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, counted the Senate vote – which featured four Democrats joining a majority of Republicans in opposition – as a clear victory.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

The poll taken and article written in April 2013.

Hardly relevant, despite the accompanying rhetoric.

[Publicus]

The National Rifle Association and its 5 million members have for the past 60 years opposed in the absolute each and every bill to improve or expand regulation of firearm ownership or possession.

The NRA is just another powerful lobby in Congress that works against the wishes and the will of the vast majority of Americans. The last gun bill that also failed in the congress maximus got a majority of 54 of the 100 senators to vote for it. Yet the proposed legislation failed because it needs 60 votes in order to avoid a gun nut filibuster in the Senate.

Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill

In a Gallup survey taken in the week after the Senate voted against the measure, 65 percent said the Senate should have passed it versus 29 percent who said it shouldn't have passed

"It is clear that more Americans support the concept of a law expanding background checks for gun purchases than say the Senate should have passed such a law," wrote Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, in a memo accompanying the poll results.

But opponents, such as the National Rifle Association, counted the Senate vote – which featured four Democrats joining a majority of Republicans in opposition – as a clear victory.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/poll-majority-supports-failed-senate-gun-control-bill

The poll taken and article written in April 2013.

Hardly relevant, despite the accompanying rhetoric.

Relevant and material to the last vote in the Senate on 'new' comprehensive gun legislation and it is the presumptive burden of any contrarians on the gun worshiping far right extremes to prove otherwise.

[chuckd]

If you feel a two year old survey supports your position, then go for it.

Gun laws are not going to stop the purchase of stolen weapons, illegally imported weapons or the future stealing of more guns.

Criminals are going to do what criminals do...and that does not include obeying the law.

You anti-gun nuts need to get realistic for a change.

[JockPieandBeans]

If you feel a two year old survey supports your position, then go for it.

Gun laws are not going to stop the purchase of stolen weapons, illegally imported weapons or the future stealing of more guns.

Criminals are going to do what criminals do...and that does not include obeying the law.

You anti-gun nuts need to get realistic for a change.

Whilst it is near on impossible for the average law abiding citizen of the UK to legally own a firearm. Firearm related crime has been rising steadily over the last 10 - 15 years.

Criminals on the other hand, do not seem to have any issues getting hold of firearms to conduct their criminal activities.

[sirineou]

Background checks are already conducted when purchasing a firearm. After viewing many of your posts, I now believe Thai Visa should be required to conduct background checks on current and future posters for mental stability.

There are some people who do bad things with guns, and more gun laws will not stop this. However, guns protect people when law enforcement can't be there unless you live in Australia. In any crime ridden American city, order a pizza and call the police at the same time to see who shows up first.

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should ask, what are these people doing out of prison. We don't need to control guns owned by millions of law abiding people. We need to control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership. I would like to see the death penalty for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. What is so unreasonable about that?

I suggest before you post or question other posters mental stability, you question yours, and do a google search on "gun background check"

"Background checks are not required under Federal law for firearm transfers between private parties"

"Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers"

PS: ​if some one want's to buy a gun for nefarious purposes and has things in his background that would prevent him from getting one if a check is conducted, do you think he would go buy the gun where a check will be done, or do you think he will go at a gun show, or buy it from a "private" individual?

This may come as a shock to you but there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks. The only people exempt from running background checks are a small number of non-commercial sellers.

There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books. Passing more idiotic gun legislation to make whiny, liberal, anti-gun nuts feel good is a waste of time.

Every time the mere mention of guns appear in the news, whiny, liberal, anti-guns nuts, come out of the wood work hysterically ranting about more gun laws on an already heavily regulated industry, and blaming the NRA.

Firstly , I would appreciate it if you would stop using ""whiny" and other demeaning terms to describe the opposite view in this debate, it demeans your arguments, and frankly it dioes not reflect well on your side.

if as you say all gun transactions at gun shows undergo a background check, then there should be no problem with having a regulation removing the private sale exclusion,

"There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books" you hit the nail on the head there, , this is exactly the point

this conglomeration of federal, state and local laws have the unintended consequence of defeating their intend by allowing criminals to go shopping for locals and venues beneficial to their intent.

I will ask again, why not have one regulation requiring a background check in EVERY gun transaction

I have asked this question several times and still I have not got an answer , and I dont expect I will get one now,

I have no problem with you getting a gun, if there is nothing in your background that will prevent you from doing so,

Why do you?

[CMNightRider]

Background checks are already conducted when purchasing a firearm. After viewing many of your posts, I now believe Thai Visa should be required to conduct background checks on current and future posters for mental stability.

There are some people who do bad things with guns, and more gun laws will not stop this. However, guns protect people when law enforcement can't be there unless you live in Australia. In any crime ridden American city, order a pizza and call the police at the same time to see who shows up first.

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should ask, what are these people doing out of prison. We don't need to control guns owned by millions of law abiding people. We need to control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership. I would like to see the death penalty for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. What is so unreasonable about that?

I suggest before you post or question other posters mental stability, you question yours, and do a google search on "gun background check"

"Background checks are not required under Federal law for firearm transfers between private parties"

"Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers"

PS: ​if some one want's to buy a gun for nefarious purposes and has things in his background that would prevent him from getting one if a check is conducted, do you think he would go buy the gun where a check will be done, or do you think he will go at a gun show, or buy it from a "private" individual?

This may come as a shock to you but there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks. The only people exempt from running background checks are a small number of non-commercial sellers.

There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books. Passing more idiotic gun legislation to make whiny, liberal, anti-gun nuts feel good is a waste of time.

Every time the mere mention of guns appear in the news, whiny, liberal, anti-guns nuts, come out of the wood work hysterically ranting about more gun laws on an already heavily regulated industry, and blaming the NRA.

Firstly , I would appreciate it if you would stop using ""whiny" and other demeaning terms to describe the opposite view in this debate, it demeans your arguments, and frankly it dioes not reflect well on your side.

if as you say all gun transactions at gun shows undergo a background check, then there should be no problem with having a regulation removing the private sale exclusion,

"There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books" you hit the nail on the head there, , this is exactly the point

this conglomeration of federal, state and local laws have the unintended consequence of defeating their intend by allowing criminals to go shopping for locals and venues beneficial to their intent.

I will ask again, why not have one regulation requiring a background check in EVERY gun transaction

I have asked this question several times and still I have not got an answer , and I dont expect I will get one now,

I have no problem with you getting a gun, if there is nothing in your background that will prevent you from doing so,

Why do you?

You are beating a dead horse. Like I said, the anti-gun nuts should focus their attention on people who commit crimes with a firearm, and not concern themselves with the millions of American law abiding gun owners. There are over 20,000 guns laws on the books right now. There is no need to continue repeating something over and over again and expecting a different result.

[sirineou]

I suggest before you post or question other posters mental stability, you question yours, and do a google search on "gun background check"

"Background checks are not required under Federal law for firearm transfers between private parties"

"Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers"

PS: ​if some one want's to buy a gun for nefarious purposes and has things in his background that would prevent him from getting one if a check is conducted, do you think he would go buy the gun where a check will be done, or do you think he will go at a gun show, or buy it from a "private" individual?

This may come as a shock to you but there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks. The only people exempt from running background checks are a small number of non-commercial sellers.

There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books. Passing more idiotic gun legislation to make whiny, liberal, anti-gun nuts feel good is a waste of time.

Every time the mere mention of guns appear in the news, whiny, liberal, anti-guns nuts, come out of the wood work hysterically ranting about more gun laws on an already heavily regulated industry, and blaming the NRA.

Firstly , I would appreciate it if you would stop using ""whiny" and other demeaning terms to describe the opposite view in this debate, it demeans your arguments, and frankly it dioes not reflect well on your side.

if as you say all gun transactions at gun shows undergo a background check, then there should be no problem with having a regulation removing the private sale exclusion,

"There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books" you hit the nail on the head there, , this is exactly the point

this conglomeration of federal, state and local laws have the unintended consequence of defeating their intend by allowing criminals to go shopping for locals and venues beneficial to their intent.

I will ask again, why not have one regulation requiring a background check in EVERY gun transaction

I have asked this question several times and still I have not got an answer , and I dont expect I will get one now,

I have no problem with you getting a gun, if there is nothing in your background that will prevent you from doing so,

Why do you?

You are beating a dead horse. Like I said, the anti-gun nuts should focus their attention on people who commit crimes with a firearm, and not concern themselves with the millions of American law abiding gun owners. There are over 20,000 guns laws on the books right now. There is no need to continue repeating something over and over again and expecting a different result.

and still no answer to my question by the pro gun nutters

The silence is deafening

[JDGRUEN]

I suggest before you post or question other posters mental stability, you question yours, and do a google search on "gun background check"

"Background checks are not required under Federal law for firearm transfers between private parties"

"Gun show loophole is a U.S. political term referring to the sales of firearms to private buyers by private sellers"

PS: ​if some one want's to buy a gun for nefarious purposes and has things in his background that would prevent him from getting one if a check is conducted, do you think he would go buy the gun where a check will be done, or do you think he will go at a gun show, or buy it from a "private" individual?

This may come as a shock to you but there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks. The only people exempt from running background checks are a small number of non-commercial sellers.

There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books. Passing more idiotic gun legislation to make whiny, liberal, anti-gun nuts feel good is a waste of time.

Every time the mere mention of guns appear in the news, whiny, liberal, anti-guns nuts, come out of the wood work hysterically ranting about more gun laws on an already heavily regulated industry, and blaming the NRA.

Firstly , I would appreciate it if you would stop using ""whiny" and other demeaning terms to describe the opposite view in this debate, it demeans your arguments, and frankly it dioes not reflect well on your side.

if as you say all gun transactions at gun shows undergo a background check, then there should be no problem with having a regulation removing the private sale exclusion,

"There are approximately 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws on the books" you hit the nail on the head there, , this is exactly the point

this conglomeration of federal, state and local laws have the unintended consequence of defeating their intend by allowing criminals to go shopping for locals and venues beneficial to their intent.

I will ask again, why not have one regulation requiring a background check in EVERY gun transaction

I have asked this question several times and still I have not got an answer , and I dont expect I will get one now,

I have no problem with you getting a gun, if there is nothing in your background that will prevent you from doing so,

Why do you?

You are beating a dead horse. Like I said, the anti-gun nuts should focus their attention on people who commit crimes with a firearm, and not concern themselves with the millions of American law abiding gun owners. There are over 20,000 guns laws on the books right now. There is no need to continue repeating something over and over again and expecting a different result.

and still no answer to my question by the pro gun nutters

The silence is deafening

First of all - Americans who respect the 2nd Amendment are not gun nutters as you insist on using the pejorative.

Secondly -- the defenders of the rights of the 2nd. Amendment on this thread do not seem to care what you want an answer to as in the over all it is not important. Just as the actions described in the OP where a few hundred people crossed a bridge to protest against guns - it is just not significant ... Why this OP was chosen to be a World News item is a puzzle to me and others.

You are getting answers -- you just do not like them. You can ask the kind of questions that you are asking until your are very old and very gray and it won't make any difference. Anti-Gun Nutters are not going to get their way. There will never be any real change in gun ownership levels in the USA as long as the real agenda is to confiscate guns and eliminate private individual ownership. We will not cooperate in an agenda to undo the 2nd. Amendment ... for with Liberals and Leftists - give and inch and they take a mile ... (we use miles in the U.S.)

[JDGRUEN]

I'm always curious when people cite the 2nd amendment as an absolute right. Does the 2nd amendment guarantee my right to openly carry a fully loaded automatic weapon and 1000 rounds of ammunition into a crowded public high school football stadium? Why not?

Fully automatic weapons require an expensive license and there a not all that many of them. Please do not mistake a 'fully automatic weapon' with semi-automatic weapons.

Difference:

Automatic Rifle -- one trigger pull fires many rounds and keeps firing until released or ammo gone

Semi-Automatic --- one trigger pull for each round fired -- it automatically reloads - but not automatically fires

Open carry laws are on the rise in the U.S. and already in some states it would be lawful to carry a semi-automatic AR-15 Rifle - loaded into a public gathering. The same as it would be to open carry a Glock semi-auto pistol with 16 rounds of ammo in the clip.

Under Concealed Carry permit laws -- semi-automatic pistols such as the Glock mentioned with full loads are probably now carried into many public gatherings in those states that have Conceal Carry Permit laws.

[sirineou]

You are beating a dead horse. Like I said, the anti-gun nuts should focus their attention on people who commit crimes with a firearm, and not concern themselves with the millions of American law abiding gun owners. There are over 20,000 guns laws on the books right now. There is no need to continue repeating something over and over again and expecting a different result.

and still no answer to my question by the pro gun nutters

The silence is deafening

First of all - Americans who respect the 2nd Amendment are not gun nutters as you insist on using the pejorative.

Secondly -- the defenders of the rights of the 2nd. Amendment on this thread do not seem to care what you want an answer to as in the over all it is not important. Just as the actions described in the OP where a few hundred people crossed a bridge to protest against guns - it is just not significant ... Why this OP was chosen to be a World News item is a puzzle to me and others.

You are getting answers -- you just do not like them. You can ask the kind of questions that you are asking until your are very old and very gray and it won't make any difference. Anti-Gun Nutters are not going to get their way. There will never be any real change in gun ownership levels in the USA as long as the real agenda is to confiscate guns and eliminate private individual ownership. We will not cooperate in an agenda to undo the 2nd. Amendment ... for with Liberals and Leftists - give and inch and they take a mile ... (we use miles in the U.S.)

Firstly

I used the Gun nutter term in response you your sides continuing use of the term, "unti-gun nuts"

one that after objecting to me using the term toward your side, continued to use in your second paragraph

Your Use of the term , aside from being derogatory, it is also a misrepresentation

we are not unti gun, we are pro regulation,

I have no problem with you owning a gun, under minimal regulation, such as a comprehensive , fully funded background check

the rally was not unti gun, it is pro regulation

and no sir , you have not answered the question , as it pertains to regulation, you have simply engages in demagoguery

if you are refusing to answer a simple question regarding the issue at hand ,

you are simply blowing hot air.and as such we should move this discussion to the global warming tread.

[JDGRUEN]

@Sirineou #86.

Your question has been answered by me and several others... there is to be no real discussion of an issue we do not support ... Go ahead - blow off my opinion on this subject - but keep in mind my opinion is mild compared to many millions of American gun owners. And these same millions of Americans vote and call their Congressional Representatives ... Remember Members of the House of Representative have to run for election every two years. House Reps want to be re-elected... going against the millions of active gun / 2nd. Amendment enthusiasts is a fast way not to be re-elected.

So - demand all the answers you want ... you won't get them because you're not important in the grand scheme of things.

[Publicus]

@Sirineou #86.

Your question has been answered by me and several others... there is to be no real discussion of an issue we do not support ... Go ahead - blow off my opinion on this subject - but keep in mind my opinion is mild compared to many millions of American gun owners. And these same millions of Americans vote and call their Congressional Representatives ... Remember Members of the House of Representative have to run for election every two years. House Reps want to be re-elected... going against the millions of active gun / 2nd. Amendment enthusiasts is a fast way not to be re-elected.

So - demand all the answers you want ... you won't get them because you're not important in the grand scheme of things.

Five million of the hundred million Americans who own guns take a membership of the National Rifle Association which opposes laws regulating ownership or possession of guns and which thereby places the NRA on the margin of the gun culture of the United States.

To advocate in the absolute guns and ammunition must not be regulated by the government is a crazy idea that only the most extreme segments of a society can conceive.

No one or group of a society has the right to demand exemption from the laws or can expect or insist on being exempt from the rule of law.

Concomitantly, advocating that certain people with whom one disagrees should not be allowed to express their opinion or pov suggests very strongly of <removed> tendencies. That such people should have unregulated access to guns and ammunition and be exempts of the laws of the society scares the bejeezus out of myself and the vast majority of Americans besides.

[sirineou]

@Sirineou #86.

Your question has been answered by me and several others... there is to be no real discussion of an issue we do not support ... Go ahead - blow off my opinion on this subject - but keep in mind my opinion is mild compared to many millions of American gun owners. And these same millions of Americans vote and call their Congressional Representatives ... Remember Members of the House of Representative have to run for election every two years. House Reps want to be re-elected... going against the millions of active gun / 2nd. Amendment enthusiasts is a fast way not to be re-elected.

So - demand all the answers you want ... you won't get them because you're not important in the grand scheme of things.

in reply #86

you explained the difference between different weapons, and the different regulations that govern them in different locations,

but it did not answer the question concerning a comprehensive background check regulation

there is am amalgamation of local. state , and federal laws, some with no teeth what's so ever, lucking enforcement and funding.

This is a deliberate strategy of the NRA

I don't demand an answer, I simply ask, what I consider a reasonable question, and since I think I am conversing with reasonable people , I expect a reasonable answer

Non is forthcoming , and I suspect because non is available.

[CMNightRider]

@Sirineou #86.

Your question has been answered by me and several others... there is to be no real discussion of an issue we do not support ... Go ahead - blow off my opinion on this subject - but keep in mind my opinion is mild compared to many millions of American gun owners. And these same millions of Americans vote and call their Congressional Representatives ... Remember Members of the House of Representative have to run for election every two years. House Reps want to be re-elected... going against the millions of active gun / 2nd. Amendment enthusiasts is a fast way not to be re-elected.

So - demand all the answers you want ... you won't get them because you're not important in the grand scheme of things.

Five million of the hundred million Americans who own guns take a membership of the National Rifle Association which opposes laws regulating ownership or possession of guns and which thereby places the NRA on the margin of the gun culture of the United States.

To advocate in the absolute guns and ammunition must not be regulated by the government is a crazy idea that only the most extreme segments of a society can conceive.

No one or group of a society has the right to demand exemption from the laws or can expect or insist on being exempt from the rule of law.

Concomitantly, advocating that certain people with whom one disagrees should not be allowed to express their opinion or pov suggests very strongly of fascist tendencies. That such people should have unregulated access to guns and ammunition and be exempts of the laws of the society scares the bejeezus out of myself and the vast majority of Americans besides.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) only opposes gun laws and regulations that infringe on the 2nd Amendment. It is a well known fact, the NRA works with legislators drafting sensible gun laws and regulations. Repeating over and over again members of the NRA are "extreme segments of society" is silly. The majority of NRA members are patriots, unlike the loony, whiny, leftist, who are trying to destroy America.