NYC is breaking down !!! Crime surge

So then won't there be no need to provide firearms AFTER the crisis?

 

I'm not sure about 'need' while I defend the 2A, there are lots of firearms in the US and people will always buy more than they need.

 

Just to be clear, I said, "won't there be NO need to provide firearms AFTER the crisis?"

 

Yes, I read it correctly.

 

And do you agree that there will be NO need to provide firearms AFTER the crisis?

 

Again, there is no need to buy firearms now, and people will continue to buy firearms after the crisis. As I stated before:

"I'm not sure about 'need' while I defend the 2A, there are lots of firearms in the US and people will always buy more than they need."

Firearms purchasing will continue to be high; it will level off after this crisis but it will go up again in the next crisis or if there is a bill on the floor to better regulate firearms purchases

 

Your statement, above, stems from ignorance and/or dishonesty.
When you think you can demonstrate how someone can legally avoid the background checks mandated by federal law, let us know.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

Says you I already provided evidence. You choose to ignore it. You can disagree but you cannot say I did not demonstrate evidence and logic. To do so is intellectually dishonest.

 

You are playing semantic games; not going to play.

 

Nothing in your "here, read this" nonsense demonstrates your claim to be true.
You know this, which is why you refuse to quote the evidence and explain how it demonstrates your claim to be true.

 

I graciously accept your surrender.

 

Then leave the discussion and do not participate further.

 

You sound like General Custer talking to the Native Americans before being decimated.You have lost; you just don't know it yet. It's a shame too, I'm just concerned about my country the US

 

You are not my boss so, nope.

 

Back in the real world, I -am- talking to someone who knows he cannot demonstrate his claims to be true.

 

The Federal law was intended to cover firearms sales in general. It was however not designed to anticipate the rise of online sales or exceptions at gun shows. Many larger dealers are federally mandated at gun shows and some online vendors do enforce background checks. Enough do not that this creates 2 issues: violent offenders getting access to firearms they are not legally allowed to have, and questionable offenders who can legally purchase firearms in a different state, online or st gun shows.

 

I feel sorry for the way you demonstrate your thought process here.

 

Then actually prove such. Cite the portion of the law that demonstrates the background check requirement was intended to apply to all firearm transfers, private and commercial.

 

You mean holding the expectation that people demonstrate their claims to be true and reminding them - and everyone else- they refuse to do so because they know they cannot?
Yeah - how silly of me.

 

And, as it is impossible to legally avoid the background checks required by that law, there is no loophole is said law.
Why do you you choose to stand in your ignorance?

 

Yes of course people will continue to buy firearms after the crisis, but do you think that they NEED to?

 

I answered this question twice, but let me try a different way. They don't need to now or after the crisis.

 

Because there are supposedly "enough" firearms in private circulation already, correct? It would be legally acceptable to close down all firearm manufacturers and federally licensed firearm dealers, driving them out of business and preventing any more from opening, because there are "enough" firearms in circulation already for the second amendment to not be violated, correct?

 

So then you think that gun stores shouldn't exist?