The would be gun grabbers position all shot to hell

The Hughes amendment prevented all private citizens (save those with very restrictive Title II licenses) from owning modern automatic firearms even though the number of crimes committed with legally owned Class III firearms is non-existent. So tell us how that ban was designed to do what I highlighted in your post

 

are you ignorant of California?

 

Or Chicago?

 

Then it is not actually possible for yourself to demonstrate the rational and legitimate reason for why the fees necessary to legally own a firearm in the state of New York, cost just as much if not even more than the market price of a new firearm.

Except for the fact that such is not the case. The prohibition came about under the watch of a city mayor who belonged to the liberal democrat party, and was maintained for thirty years under continual liberal democrat leadership. It was implemented in the form of stripping the licensing board of any funding to register handguns, while at the same time holding that only handguns registered with the district of columbia were legal to own. It was a total handgun prohibition without the prohibition actually needing to be codified into law.

 

The state of California is one such state where supposedly "universal" background checks are indeed the law. There is not so much as one single legal avenue for a person to take possession of a firearm without undergoing a background check, even when through a private purchase.

 

...would cost almost $3800 today.
Don't think for a second he anti-gun left doesn't want to lay such a tax on gun transfers..

 

UBC or not, in the US, it currently isn’t legal to for any seller to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone prohibited from having one or for a person prohibited to take possession or own one.

 

Unless of course the one who is performing the transfer is working on behalf of the united states federal government. Such as in operation fast and furious, for which the pertinent documents still have not been released.

 

Obviously you have not actually read the law. Get back to us when you have informed yourself.

 

So you cannot find evidence to support your statement.

 

You were supposed to support yours is how it works.

 

The law has indeed been read, as well as understood. The claims being presented on the part of yourself are factually deficient, and not based on matters of truth. Do be sure to get back to those present when it can be demonstrated otherwise, and do be sure to back up the position of yourself with actual citations, not mere opinions.

 

Why don't you try to do the same since it is obvious you have not actually read the law.

 

No since you were the one claiming that illegals increase the gun death rate you should be able to prove it. Not my job to prove you have no evidence since it is becoming obvious you are just blowing Trump smoke.

 

Nice diversion, but you lost that argument.

 

Sure. The old run and duck and claim victory. Didn't work it Vietnam and won't work here. You make a claim you cannot support and then claim victory. If lies make you sleep better you have my blessing.

 

Like the lies you continually push out will make you sleep better.

I was in Vietnam and I doubt you have a clue what that was all about.

And I can back any claim I make, just ask which one you are contending?

Maybe try again, this time get a clue?

 

Well if you can back any claim why don't you! And just for laughs why don't you tell us what you think Vietnam was all about. And by the way my opinion is that the peopke who went to Vietnam were just to damn chicken or to confused to take the consequences of opposing an immoral war.

 

Why are you fighting the fires for the illegals?

I urge you to read, since you do not believe me on the impact of below the border gang violence.

If you do not truly understand as you admit, follow my tip to check it out. Reports on this have nothing to do with Trump.

 

It is getting rather rare for posters to admit they were all in favor of the Ho Chi Minh regime.

 

Is there a moral war? I judge the war started by Abe to be one that was immoral. Watch Democrats defend that immoral war.

 

Simple because you have not posted any claim you wish you me to back up!

Which indicates you are full of it.

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/pen/12070-12086.html

The law in question is quite clear. All firearm sales, even those between private individuals, may not legally proceed without a background check first being performed. There are no exceptions to be found within the law in question other than for law enforcement officers, and law enforcement officers exclusively. For all intents and purposes, the background check requirement is truly universal.

 

Then you obviously didn't actually read it!

 

If you can't follow the discussion it isn't my problem. Bye!