Originally Posted by Guest

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?

About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.

We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

Proof?
All the immigration laws did not/do not /has not/ will not prevent illegal entry to the USA....proven every single day.

An intelligent conversation about guns will never happen
if certain liberal Democrats are involved.
A lot them shoot their mouth off half cocked!

Originally Posted by Guest

An intelligent conversation about guns will never happen
if certain liberal Democrats are involved.
A lot them shoot their mouth off half cocked!

They are afraid that they might be shot by Joe Citizen when they are breaking into his business during a protest. They are real good at protesting guns and protesting COPs shooting criminal thugs. Their "intelligent conversation" consists of rehashing laws already in existence. But, they will also defend Obama's Fast and Furious gun program.

One would think an easy bi-partisan action would be to outlaw bump stock and have manufacturers modify their product to not accommodate the modification.
And of course outlaw the kit to make the modification.
Seems like an easy opportunity to show an action being taken.

Originally Posted by Guest

One would think an easy bi-partisan action would be to outlaw bump stock and have manufacturers modify their product to not accommodate the modification.
And of course outlaw the kit to make the modification.
Seems like an easy opportunity to show an action being taken.

Wow, amazing! First incident of bump stock killing and this is your answer for crime and killing. I have done the same exact thing with a large rubber band and you think that making a law will keep this from happening again? Hey, NEWS FLASH, he had bomb making material and could have blown up the whole hotel if he wished. If he didn't have a gun, he would have. Is there any doubt?

No, the answer is to prosecute every little gun related crime like President Ford wanted to do. Give an ADDITIONAL five years to anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime. Will that stop this kind of killing? NOPE. Nothing would have stopped it. You cannot regulate mental illness. And many mentally ill are functioning in society. There is NO absolute solution for violent behavior, other than keeping everyone drugged.

According to PEW, there are now half the gun related deaths than in 1993. AND there is twice the amount of guns owned as about that same period. Does it mean anything? Probably not, but it is an interesting question.

Originally Posted by Guest

One would think an easy bi-partisan action would be to outlaw bump stock and have manufacturers modify their product to not accommodate the modification.
And of course outlaw the kit to make the modification.
Seems like an easy opportunity to show an action being taken.

That actually makes too much sense...so it will never fly.

The extreme gun nuts will scream at the NRA..."you're acquiescing on my right to bear arms!"

Originally Posted by Guest

That actually makes too much sense...but will never fly.

The extreme gun nuts will scream at the NRA for..."acquiescing on their right to bear arms!"

Typically, those that do not understand guns, other than they go BOOM, will jump on any bandwagon, just to be doing something. Hysteria is predominant on the left.

One incident of this modification and we must have a law related to it. Like I said above, I can do it with a large rubber band so go ahead and waste time making new impotent laws. Laws do not matter to the left anyway. Laws infringe on their rights.

Originally Posted by Guest

Typically, those that do not understand guns, other than they go BOOM, will jump on any bandwagon, just to be doing something. Hysteria is predominant on the left.

One incident of this modification and we must have a law related to it. Like I said above, I can do it with a large rubber band so go ahead and waste time making new impotent laws. Laws do not matter to the left anyway. Laws infringe on their rights.

Thank you for proving me correct.

And so darned quickly at that.



Deepest Sincere Wishes:

Originally Posted by Guest

Thank you for proving me correct.

And so darned quickly at that.



Deepest Sincere Wishes:

You have NEVER been RIGHT. You are a libtard and they are ALWAYS left and wrong. What a dumb@ss!

Originally Posted by Guest

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?

About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.

We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

Your first three assertions are quite simply not correct.

1. Florida has no law generally requiring a background check for a Private Firearm Sale In Florida or on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer.

2. Perhaps you come from a state where private sales of firearms can only be accomplished between family members, but that is not the case in Florida.

3. The ATF agents at gun shows are not there because private sales are illegal, but rather because they are looking for sellers who are pretending to only be doing a small volume of private sales when they are actually selling in numbers that should require that they have a Federal Firearms License.

Carl in Tampa

.

Originally Posted by Guest

Proof?
All the immigration laws did not/do not /has not/ will not prevent illegal entry to the USA....proven every single day.

gunrelated vs autorelated deaths.jpg

use facts, not opinions

Originally Posted by Guest

Purchasing a car is not a Constitutional Right.

A well regulated militia is.....so regulate!

peopleNOTguns.jpg

gunsdon'tkillpeople.jpg

WellRegulated.jpg

2nd amendment says.jpg

Originally Posted by Guest

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

Please provide verifiable proof of that statement......

Originally Posted by Guest

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?
About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

gunrelated vs autorelated deaths.jpg

Originally Posted by Guest

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

Again, Please provide verifiable proof of that statement......

Originally Posted by Guest

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.
We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

More drunk drivers have been arrested, and taken off the road because of laws. No law will exact a universal solution because dirtbags break the laws, and morons defend those who break the laws (like the above statement). And, since more Americans have been killed by gun violence in the past 3 years than ALL of the Americans who died in the Vietnam War, we should look at the fact that the present laws are inadequate, not being enforced, or have too many loopholes to be effective.

GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE FAQ:Gun Show Loophole FAQ - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Originally Posted by Guest

I wonder what solutions you would suggest.

Let's look at the shooting in Las Vegas.

1. A "silencer" was not used. Why did you feel the need to bring up the issue of suppressors? (They muffle sound, but they do not silence it.)

2. There is no allegation that the firearms used were illegally purchased. Why do you bring up illegal purchases?

3. It is early in the investigation, but it appears likely that the shooter illegally possessed firearms capable of automatic fire. It is conjectured that he personally, illegally converted the firearms from semi-automatic to full automatic capability. There were "gun control laws" in place to deter what the shooter did, but he broke the laws.

4. He committed mass murder. What gun control laws do you think a mass murderer would feel constrained to obey?

Regarding some of your other statements and "statistics,"

1. Where did you get your figure of "407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone?" I wonder if it includes Justifiable Homicides and the shooting of criminals by police officers.

More to the point, it is much too low, since it does not appear to include the 527 homicides in Chicago alone this year. That's Chicago, where handguns are pretty much totally outlawed by Chicago law. That demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such laws.

2. The purchase and possession of firearms is one of the most heavily regulated activities of our citizens, with federal, state, and local laws in force. Where do you get the idea "nothing been done to address this issue?"

3. And, of course, you surely know that all businesses that sell firearms are required to have potential firearms purchasers fill out a federal questionnaire and be subject to a National Criminal Background Check prior to the sale of a firearm.

And, purchase and possession of certain firearms, such as fully automatic firearms, are severely restricted. You make a much overblown statement when you speak of "unfettered access to any kind of firearm." That is nonsense.

------------------------

Things to consider:

1. The Second Amendment prohibits gun confiscation. Recent Supreme Court decisions have re-affirmed that the amendment guarantees the right of individual citizens to "keep and bear arms."

2. It is estimated that there are over 300 Million guns in the United States. Any attempt to outlaw or seize all guns would result in millions of them being tucked away and exchanged on the black market.

3. Experts who are concerned about defense against assassins and mass murders agree that there can never be an absolute defense against occurrences like Las Vegas in a free society.

--------------------------

So I ask you again. What would you suggest?


Carl in Tampa

.

While you make some valid points doing nothing time after time when these events occur is no longer acceptable.

When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment they used muskets with gunpowder and balls. Now we have semi-automatic weapons, high capacity clips and high power scopes which allow a gunman to fire round after round at unarmed innocent people.

How many rounds did they find? How can one person be allowed to purchase that many rounds? Who knew about Bump Stocks? Are automatic weapons supposed to outlawed? Then why can someone buy something to turn his semi-automatic gun into an automatic gun?

We could start with Bump Stocks, or limit the amount of ammo you buy or own.

In my hometown Colorado Springs we had 2 domestic terrorist attacks in a month. One was reported to 911 before the attack as a resident saw a man brandishing a long gun but Colorado is an open carry state now. So 3 people in Colorado Springs are dead now, 4 if you count the shooter!

I noticed that no one has mentioned that the Orangeman just rescinded Obama gun checks for the mentally ill! Are you kidding me?

It is time to stand-up to the gun lobby especially the NRA...just where was the good guy with a gun to stop this terrorist attack or the 2 in Colorado Springs?

COPUFF...