Gun Purchase Without Background Check | What's Your Stance?

lol, this argument is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid its rediculous....i mean seriously, cons really show how incredible (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid they are (its really hard to grasp for me how anyone can be this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid) if they pull that one out, its hilarious...

 

He is right of course and you have no argument that can prove him wrong.

 

hahahahahahahaah

u r right, just common sense and logic...hilarious..are u guys really that stupid or r u just trolling me right now?

 

Thank you for proving my point.

 

u r that stupid

 

You sound awfully young. Your answer desperately proves that you have no answer available other than sophomoric responses.

 

seriously, if u cant see whats wrong with that argument u disqualify yourself from posting on a political forum since u obviously have no comprhension of the most basic logic whatsoever..

 

Thank you again for now proving my second point.

 

It's apparent "a sound mind" is trolling as they only resort to insults regarding the issue rather than actually making an effort to address why they disagree with the issue.

 

Meanwhile, here is a great writeup.

Snell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story

 

do u really not get whats wrong with your argument? have u lost every ability to think?

 

what grade school do you belong to?

 

Do you have the ability to form sentences that convey an idea or response other than this very childish nonsense? I am guessing the answer is no.

 

texting answers and question show the limits of the simplest forms of communication. Again, what grade are you in?
Do you even know what the Constitution is and how it's suppose to function?

 

??????

 

based on your response, 7th grade............

 

I support the instant checks that are already done at FFLs and licensed gun shops.
More checks and private medical records being used is too much.
Enforce the laws we have.

 

The other thing is that criminals just don't go to gun shows. A study of the mid 1990s showed that only about .7% of criminals get guns at gun shows. It makes perfect sense, having been to a gun show. If I were a convicted felon, I would never go to a gun show to buy guns--too many cops, former cops and cleancut men that look like cops. Most gun shows have at least two or three off duty cops (in uniform) watching the entrance.

I do agree. The only people that would go to the trouble of background checks for private sales are the people that aren't selling to criminals anyway. The people currently selling to criminals aren't going to stop doing so.

 

Obviously, no data can be collected, because it is unlikely that a thug will tell the cops who the thug was that let him buy a gun. You could get yourself killed that way.

 

No way in hell. This would require that private, corporate entities have access to criminal files on everybody. Not, coproations CANNOT be trusted to act in the public interest. They never have before and they scream like slapped babies no every time some law is proposed to correct observeable harm that they have done.

The checks need to be done by a government entity, at actual cost, no greasey executives taking a bonus off the top.

 

This raises another interesting point. Bureaucratic bloat. Why should I be forced to carry the burden of paying for an increase in bureaucracy when it is the anti-gunners howling and screaming for blood? Personally, I think they should carry the cost of the UBC, should it ever pass, since they are the ones demanding it.

 

If Obama and his Democrats really wanted to get people's guns, he would issue an order declaring gun ownership to be unconstitutional and demanding that everyone turn in their guns to their local police stations within 60 days. All law-abiding conservatives would be scrambling and falling all over themselves in a mad rush to turn in their guns.

Then they'd all gloat and proudly brag about how law-abiding, patriotic and good citizens they are for obeying the constitution.

Of course, that would only get rid of about one third of the guns. The other two thirds of the guns belong to criminals who would ignore the order.

 

I don't know. I would suddenly have lost all my guns in a boating accident then become an enemy of the State because I want to continue to be an American.

 

He cannot legally override the BoR. His declaration of banning guns would have no force of law. He and Holder, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and the rest of that ilk think they can do anything they want. Don't get me wrong, if Maobama could get away with it, he would do just that. For some odd reason, he views the privilege of Executive Orders to be his key to the safe that contains the Bill of Rights. This guy and his buddies have got to go.

 

Government entities have proven themselves to be so efficient and honest and above reproach