[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Well let's see, under current law

In addition to requiring firearm dealers, manufacturers, and importers to initiate a background check on any non-licensee to whom they intend to transfer a firearm, and prohibiting the possession of firearms by nine categories of prohibited persons under federal law. While a person may advertise a firearm on the internet:

Federal law prohibits transferring a firearm to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms. (18 USC992(d))
Federal law prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a handgun outside his state of residence and prohibits a non-licensee from acquiring a rifle or shotgun from a non-licensee outside his state of residence. (18 USC 992(a)(3))
Federal law prohibits anyone from transferring a handgun to a non-licensee who resides in another state (with rare exceptions), and prohibits a non-licensee from transferring any firearm to a non-licensee who resides in another state. (18 USC 922(a)(5))
Federal law prohibits the acquisition of a firearm on behalf of a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms. (18 USC 922(h) and 922(a)(6))
Federal law prohibits anyone from providing a handgun to a juvenile (person under age 18), and prohibits juveniles from possessing handguns, with limited exceptions. (18 USC 922(x))
Federal law also prohibits dealers from selling rifles or shotguns to persons under age 18. (18 USC 922(b)(1))

This is for your previous post also, where you lied and tried to misdirect about..

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

. (...."or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows")

First of all, you're being disingenuous in saying "NO" background checks are done"...as that is NOT what is being said. Licensed dealers are still required to perform the checks at gun shows...and no one is saying otherwise.

You also know that because of the 'loophole' that only requires 'gun dealers' to perform background checks (NOT private sellers), even those at gun shows...you're simply trying to deflect.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Hmmmm......The President has called for a ban on bumpstocks as reported by CNN (link here)

The NRA has called on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to immediately review if these devices comply with federal law (linked here) and if additional regulation is needed.

LOL

"Called for" yet has done NOTHING since the NRA lunch...to push it along.

As for the NRA giving 'lip-service' to banning bumpstocks, here's the typical gun-nut site on that subject. Which people like yourself, are the ones demanding that the NRA virulently resist ANY new laws.

I encourage reasonable people to read the entire opinion screed (link below) and judge for yourself...from whence the opposition arises.
ATF Discovers a New Meaning of 'Automatic' to Regulate Bump-Stocks

the purpose of the Second Amendment’s protection against a tyrannical government

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Perhaps it is because as a nation of laws, it does take time. Perhaps if the legislation was written to cover bumpstocks specifically and not try to overreach by including other gun parts, types of guns, then the legislation might go through sooner. The more complex that a legislation is, the longer it will take to pass. And yes, there should be opposition to overreaching laws meant to "back door" their way around ANY constitutional amendment.

But I am not sure as to the why you are referencing, so please provide your facts and links.

BS!

The entire goal and sentiment by hardcore gun-lovers, as shown above in the link, is to drag out the process, twist the arms of politicians with the money & power the NRA wields...and wait for the next news cycle and hope people forget about it.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Also, please explain how Chicago, with the most restrictive guns laws in the country, still has a high hand gun homicide rate. If it doesn't work in Chicago, how would more gun laws work anywhere else?

The favorite excuse to try and convince people...not to do ANYTHING.

I also suggest reasonable people read this article in its entirety.
Fact Check: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work? : NPR

Quibbling over exactly what part of the U.S. is No. 1 in terms of gun-law strictness, however, isn't the most compelling part of Sanders' statement. She also said that having gun regulations "certainly hasn't helped" in Chicago.

That's a much more controversial claim — and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

And you have specific knowledge of this? You know this for a fact?

Oh wow, you didn't really go there...did you?

I appreciate the opportunity to present facts though.

Trump appears to backpedal on gun control remarks after NRA meeting | The Independent

But Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, suggested the President had reversed his position following a White House meeting, and wanted “safe schools, mental health reform and to keep guns away from dangerous people”.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Please, please provide a link to support your reference that the national leaders perpetuate the bullying.

ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS?!

In an effort to keep this thread from being shut down due to too much politics, the response to your hilarious question can be answered in three words (or 280 characters)... JUST READ TWITTER!



This sad, but true, cartoon succinctly demonstrates yours and so many other...gun-lovers true position.

But sorry, too many children have died...for it to continue.