gun show loophole rant

Quote: s2dbaker

That might make sense if background checks were not required at gun shops. I'm certain that a background check can be worked out without photo ID.

How? If you don't have an ID you could just say you were anybody. Couldn't you even give different name at different places? Or just give the name of a dead person?

Quote: AZDuffman

How? If you don't have an ID you could just say you were anybody. Couldn't you even give different name at different places? Or just give the name of a dead person?

You could but that would be illegal and you could go to jail for that. Just like a straw purchaser or Martha Stewart. You lie to the feds, you go to jail.

Quote: s2dbaker

You could but that would be illegal and you could go to jail for that. Just like a straw purchaser or Martha Stewart. You lie to the feds, you go to jail.

So you are saying just take someone's word of who they are? Even if no ID just run the background check?

Quote: AZDuffman

So you are saying just take someone's word of who they are? Even if no ID just run the background check?

Not at all. You have to sign for it. If you are illiterate then a witness has to attest that you are in fact who you present yourself to be.

Quote: s2dbaker

Not at all. You have to sign for it. If you are illiterate then a witness has to attest that you are in fact who you present yourself to be.

And of course a person who plans to use the gun in a crime won't sign a phony name.

Perhaps but the individual would have to go through the extra step of committing fraud while purchasing a weapon. If, after the sale, the paperwork did not check out then the person who purchased the weapon could be prosecuted. Is it a perfect system, no. Is it even a good system, no. But it puts another barrier in place between a criminal and a weapon without infringing on anyone's rights.

Quote: Face

But who are these people thinking everyone should have access to a gun? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that one before…

Ok Face---- I then ask you, who gets denied the right to own a gun legally? When I ask this question some say those with 'criminal records'... Do you deny it to a man who was convicted of insurance fraud? Had a DUI? Did not pay child support?
Then some say 'not if they have "mental Problems"... such as treated depression? such as arachnaphobia?

How about this one.... An 18 year old gentleman applies and states the following.... "I want to join a gang in my neighborhood, as to not do so puts me at risk as being targeted by both gangs that currently operate there. All of the gang members have illegal firearms, but as the law abiding citizen that I am I want to possess a legal firearm. Which firearm can I purchase, that if needed, can fire the most rounds in the shortest period of time? I did kill a cat when I was 15, but that was expunged from my record when I turned 18, and I also have a few drug arrests which have never amounted to a conviction."
Does he get the semiautomatic weapon he desires?

Quote: s2dbaker

Perhaps but the individual would have to go through the extra step of committing fraud while purchasing a weapon. If, after the sale, the paperwork did not check out then the person who purchased the weapon could be prosecuted. Is it a perfect system, no. Is it even a good system, no. But it puts another barrier in place between a criminal and a weapon without infringing on anyone's rights.

So let me see if I have this straight. You think we need to do a background check on all buyers but have a system that would be 100% open to fraud? And that puts a barrier between a criminal and a gun how again?

Quote: AZDuffman

So let me see if I have this straight. You think we need to do a background check on all buyers but have a system that would be 100% open to fraud? And that puts a barrier between a criminal and a gun how again?

I reject your assumption that the system is 100 percent open to fraud.

Quote: s2dbaker

I reject your assumption that the system is 100 percent open to fraud.

Do you are saying if you don't require ID anyone can't just go and give any name?

Quote: AZDuffman

Do you are saying if you don't require ID anyone can't just go and give any name?

If you want to make owning a gun a right like voting, then a signature would be on file and whenever you choose to purchase a new weapon, you sign off. Just like there's no actual voter fraud, there would be no gun background check fraud.

Quote: s2dbaker

If you want to make owning a gun a right like voting, then a signature would be on file and whenever you choose to purchase a new weapon, you sign off. Just like there's no actual voter fraud, there would be no gun background check fraud.

First, owning a gun is already a right like voting.

Second, you think there is no voter fraud? Har har har. I suppose that worker who voted for Obama six times was not commuting fraud?

Quote: AZDuffman

First, owning a gun is already a right like voting.

Second, you think there is no voter fraud? Har har har. I suppose that worker who voted for Obama six times was not commuting fraud?

"That Worker" should be arrested, tried, sentanced and then executed. See how it works? You break the law, you die! And that's how there's no voter fraud and that's how there can be no gun background check fraud. (Har har? Is it laugh like a pirate day already?)

Quote: s2dbaker

"That Worker" should be arrested, tried, sentanced and then executed. See how it works? You break the law, you die! And that's how there's no voter fraud and that's how there can be no gun background check fraud. (Har har? Is it laugh like a pirate day already?)

So by your logic there is no gun violence if the actor gets arrested and goes to prison?

Quote: AZDuffman

So by your logic there is no gun violence if the actor gets arrested and goes to prison?

No

Quote: s2dbaker

No

yes

Quote: s2dbaker

No

Please re-read your previous post (two up from here) and explain how your answer can be "no." You clearly stated there would be no voter fraud if the person who committed such fraud was arrested and convicted. So why does the same not hold true with a violent gun crime?

Louisville basketball player Kevin Ware broke his leg after landing awkwardly after a jump. According to the logic in this thread, maybe we should ban jumping?

Quote: Beethoven9th

Louisville basketball player Kevin Ware broke his leg after landing awkwardly after a jump. According to the logic in this thread, maybe we should ban jumping?

no











we should ban college

Quote: Beethoven9th

Louisville basketball player Kevin Ware broke his leg after landing awkwardly after a jump. According to the logic in this thread, maybe we should ban jumping?

only if jumping had no other purpose but to break legs.

Maverick17,

Haha!

Quote: s2dbaker

only if jumping had no other purpose but to break legs.

Then that's good, because the purpose of guns is for self-defense.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Then that's good, because the purpose of guns is for self-defense.

Self-defense
Target shooting
Display
Hunting

As long as you are not a person who thinks they will shoot themself when they clean their guns and spend all your time listing crazy links about alleged "cleaning accidents" it is amazing what you can find to do with a gun.

Quote: AZDuffman

Self-defense
Target shooting
Display
Hunting

As long as you are not a person who thinks they will shoot themself when they clean their guns and spend all your time listing crazy links about alleged "cleaning accidents" it is amazing what you can find to do with a gun.

Point well taken. I should have said: One purpose of guns is self-defense.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Point well taken. I should have said: One purpose of guns is self-defense.

Not at all. I'm sure I missed several myself.

Quote: SOOPOO

Ok Face---- I then ask you, who gets denied the right to own a gun legally? When I ask this question some say those with 'criminal records'... Do you deny it to a man who was convicted of insurance fraud? Had a DUI? Did not pay child support?
Then some say 'not if they have "mental Problems"... such as treated depression? such as arachnaphobia?

I’ll do my best, and I’ll assume the “you” you mean is “What Would Face Do?”

A violent felony is a lifetime ban now, and would remain so under my regime. Murder/Rape/Assault/etc of a felonious nature and of a high degree is bye-bye guns. Regardless of whether a gun was used, you have shown incredible sociopathy/psychopathy and a complete lack of moral character. You Are Done.

Other felonies of a non-violent nature, your DWIs/frauds/drug possession are a ban now and would remain so under Face. However, some (Many? Few? All?) states allow for an appeals process to regain your right to possess a weapon, and I would, too. The fact that you engaged in that behavior shows you’re irresponsible and suffer from a skewed moral compass, so you should lose your gun. But, I believe in second chances, and think they should get one for this.

When it comes to misdemeanors, I don’t think I’m educated enough in law to give a proper opinion. Part of me thinks that misd’s of a violent nature should rank higher in punishment than a felony of a non-violent nature (your chronic bar fighter, for instance), but I know guys who have nearly gotten “violent misd’s” for hockey fights in tournament play. One is violent, antisocial behavior, the other is a bar fight (I kid ;)). Seriously, one is a social problem, one is fun. One is a possible reason to lose a gun, the other would be a ridiculous infringement of rights. Due to my own ignorance, I’ll bow out of this argument here.

Mental problems are tough. I think we can firstly and obviously flat out eliminate any of the disorders that shouldn’t be considered, such as the phobias, body dysmorphic, dyslexia, etc.

Disorders that should be considered are your depression, mania, psychosis, you know, the obvious ones. But how to objectively grade these things is beyond my ability. I can’t even really give a guess. I know that from 17ish to about 25, I was at times severely depressed. At times, I got real manic. Sometimes, I still do, although not to the point it’s a “problem”, and nowhere near as often or intensely as I used to (keep in mind, I’ve been shooting since 8 and had my first gun at 12). I and guys like me should in no way be infringed on gun ownership. A guy that literally cannot function because of his demons? Yeah, maybe not give that guy a pistol. But where to draw the line? I have no idea. Guys worse than the recluse might be fine, guys that aren’t as bad as me might snap. I don’t think that can be helped.

Quote: SOOPOO

How about this one.... An 18 year old gentleman applies and states the following.... "I want to join a gang in my neighborhood, as to not do so puts me at risk as being targeted by both gangs that currently operate there. All of the gang members have illegal firearms, but as the law abiding citizen that I am I want to possess a legal firearm. Which firearm can I purchase, that if needed, can fire the most rounds in the shortest period of time? I did kill a cat when I was 15, but that was expunged from my record when I turned 18, and I also have a few drug arrests which have never amounted to a conviction."
Does he get the semiautomatic weapon he desires?

I assume this is for a handgun as there are no “licenses” for long guns,

The cat I would guess would not affect things. The drug charge I know would not affect things (I have and have admitted to a dropped possession charge of my own, both on my app and in my interview) The gang statement would be an immediate denial. While I find areas of the app process that are lacking, the interviews are legit. You will have a Sheriff/Trooper come to your house, grill you, and all 5 of your references. Give him your gang story and he’ll laugh all the way out your door and the whole way to the Clerk’s Office and still be laughing when he rubber stamps a big, red “DENIED” on it.

However; if gang bangin’ SOOPOO was all of the above but wanted a long gun instead of a pistol, then all you need is an ID and a few hundred dollars. Further, other states have much lighter handgun laws, where for open carry, all you need is an ID and a few hundred dollars.

I have more to say, including what might be the beginning of an answer, but I'm saving it for a reply to boymimbo's last post. That reply will be coming directly, just need a bit o' time to suss it out.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not at all. I'm sure I missed several myself.

What always amazes me is how the gunphobes believe that the sole purpose of guns is to kill innocent people. SMH.

Quote: boymimbo

Just because I don't answer the question doesn't mean that I have no idea. It's pretty easy to say why maximum jail times aren't being enforced. It's because your jails are more than full and the justice system is slow and unfair. Gun crime is so much less severe than a marijuana dealer on their third strike.

Ha! Well said =)

Quote: boymimbo

So, what i'd like to see is some suggestion from the gun proponents to suggest ways to reduce the number of gun crimes that doesn't involve legislation, then. What is it? More guns? More gun clubs? Education? Mental health programs? What?

Allow me to lay this out there, and see if this idea can gain some momentum, or at least break this cycle of endless arguments. Since we've seemed to have gotten into safety, that's also where this reply is headed...

Let’s start where I always start – education. Using myself as the example, I’ve been around guns my whole life. I’ve been shooting since 8, some 24 odd years. Even with constant exposure, even with a number of “hunter/shooter safety courses” under my belt, even with Pops being a constant fixture of positive safety reinforcement, I can look back as few as 2 years and just cringe at some of the things I’ve done. It wasn’t out of irresponsibility, it wasn’t from disobeying Jeff Cooper’s four rules of gun safety, it was simply lack of knowledge. In short, you don’t know what you don’t know. I currently have been refining my game, getting better by the week, but I know there’s still stuff out there I don’t know, still probably doing stupid things. Things that could be prevented with the proper education.

Surely, no one is against all shooters being smarter, right? We all on the same page still? Gunners, yes? Antis, yes? OK…

So what’s the answer? How about education that’s mandatory? Stay with me gunners on this one, don’t turn on me just yet…

The biggest issue I see with this is the money game. Gun education ain’t cheap, and it could surely be looked at as a “tax” of sorts. Sure, maybe I could afford it (but honestly, even for me it’d be a stretch) but what about a lower income household? Even $200 for a used piece is a stretch, now I’m going to double, maybe even quadruple that cost or more because of “education”? It’ll price many right out of the game. In other words, it’ll be an infringement upon the poor. I know how much a piece costs, I know how much good, useful training courses cost (ie not these piss poor excuses for knowledge the current system requires), and I wouldn’t support that idea on the surface. Still with me?...

So how about we use the gun industry? Not the gov, not the lobby, but the industry itself. The industry is large enough to reach from the Keys to the Aleutians, has the money to make this happen, has shown the solidarity and support of the American citizen, and, above all, is a business whose priority is to seek and acquire dollars. So, how about we set up a loyalty program? I imagine it to go something like this…

Boymimbo, after coming back to the states and hanging with his boy Face at the range, decides he wants a piece. He goes to the gun store, shops around, and at the urging of Face, settles on a Glock. Glock is contacted, boymimbo signs a contract promising to buy a Glock, and Glock sends him through school, either free of charge or heavily subsidized. Boymimbo comes out with a Glock and the knowledge of operation, use, safety, tactics, clearing, etc. Glock loses a bit on cost of school (which I’m sure they could wheel and deal with by setting up additional, large quantity give-and-takes with instructors and get it cheaper than retail), they make that loss back and a tick more on the sale, and gain not only the loyalty of boymimbo (who after such treatment will probably be back to buy another Glock), but also advertisement, since boymimbo will now most likely be talking Glock all the time (just search “Glock” on here and DT, see how many times I’ve said it). Boymimbo comes out a knowledgeable and safe owner, Glock gets increased business and advertisement, hell, it might even create additional instructor jobs. At the very least, it’ll increase the business of those which currently exist. And not a bit of it will cost a taxpayer dime. None of it will be fucked up by the hand of government.

Now, politics and economics are not my strong point. Safe to say, they’re both probably my weaker subjects. I’m sure the brain trust here will easily find issues here and there with my idea, and I’m not claiming it’s perfect. But before we start dissecting it, I’ll ask you three things…

1) As a first draft, rough brainstorm idea, does it have merit?
2) If so, does it positively address the issue with minimal downside?
3) If you answered yes to the above, then how come the first you’ve heard of this is from some uneducated redneck from the middle of nowhere?

Quote: Beethoven9th

Then that's good, because the purpose of guns is for self-defense.

Well, can you tell me why you would ever need to defend yourself by firing 150+ bullets in 5 minutes?

Quote: s2dbaker

Well, can you tell me why you would ever need to defend yourself by firing 150+ bullets in 5 minutes?

I guess you don't remember the Rodney King Riots? Watts Riots? Multiple MLK Riots? Multiple G-8/20/whatever riots?

But it doesn't matter, "need" has nothing to do with it. If you want such a gun to defend yourself in case of civil disorder you should be free to get one. As long as you do not use it for crime you are hurting nobody. I get nervous when people suggest the government decides what I "need."

Quote: AZDuffman

I guess you don't remember the Rodney King Riots? Watts Riots? Multiple MLK Riots? Multiple G-8/20/whatever riots?

But it doesn't matter, "need" has nothing to do with it. If you want such a gun to defend yourself in case of civil disorder you should be free to get one. As long as you do not use it for crime you are hurting nobody. I get nervous when people suggest the government decides what I "need."

You are correct, he doesn't. And since he can't remember, you (or anyone else) don't need a gun.

Simple end of argument. If you need proof I can scour the internet for days to find a half dozen articles that fit my reality, and will keep smashing worthless points over your head until you get it.

You say more gun laws only hurt the law abiding citizen? Prove it, because I just hunted for 3 hours on askjeeves.com to find a story that says if this one guy didn't have a gun the rest of his life would have been kitty cats and roses, guaranteed, but since he did have a gun, and did something bad, or evil, or dumb, now everyone should suffer because that is the only way to keep me and the other 300,000,000 'Mericans safe.

See how I said 'Mericans? That proves I am right, and all you idiot pro-gun guys are stupid, because you all say 'Mericans, and didn't vote for Obama.

My facts are based on the Internet, and the Internet does not lie! Bon Jour!!!

Quote: s2dbaker

Well, can you tell me why you would ever need to defend yourself by firing 150+ bullets in 5 minutes?

Because they are more efficient than regular shotguns. The Korean store owners in the 1992 LA riots can attest to that.

Quote: AZDuffman

If you want such a gun to defend yourself in case of civil disorder you should be free to get one. As long as you do not use it for crime you are hurting nobody.

Exactly. I don't understand people who think that the 2nd Amendment only applies to 18th century firearms.

My response is: If the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, then the 1st Amendment only applies to pencils.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Exactly. I don't understand people who think that the 2nd Amendment only applies to 18th century firearms.

My response is: If the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets, then the 1st Amendment only applies to pencils.

Wrong again..... Quill pens and parchment paper, bro.

Pencil = high capasity = bad


God it's fun being a liberal, I can just make shit up out of nowhere and all you people believe me! My mom was right, I am fucking smart!

Quote: Maverick17

My mom was right, I am fucking smart!

No, your mother was merely condescending. I'm so sorry.

He cares

Quote: s2dbaker

No, ... I'm so sorry.

I forgive you

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

I'd like to know more about the operation because there are radio frequency transmitters with ranges in miles that can run off fairly low amounts of power for periods longer than 48 hours. But in the end, I really don't care that much, it just strikes me as another example of people that don't know squat about technology babbling out buzzwords.

Once again, i quoted the whistleblower on the project who was intimately connected with the project. I didn't make a claim to the range. It was a direct quote attributed to someone else.

Quote:

You did answer my question, you said you didn't know. To me that either means you have no idea, or you're holding back because the idea you do have doesn't fit well with your agenda.

Actually I never said i didn't know. I didn't answer the question.

Quote:

So is this a researched, knowledgeable answer or is it from the book of ROMA? (The book of ROMA is a term we used in marketing to describe when someone was just making up facts or statistics to support their view. (ROMA: Right Outta My Ass)

It's a damned fine answer coming straight out of my ass. I have yet to hear any better out of yours.

Quote:

Well then (feel like I've already asked this...) do you have any suggestions as to what those "thoughtful" laws might be?

Yeah, I've suggested many things... more than anyone else on this forum...

Quote:

Wow, that NRA lobby sure is powerful. I have to admit I'm a little puzzled as to why the CDC would study this in any event, do they refer to gun shot victims as having "lead poisoning"?

Yeah, it was very powerful, and still is. The CDC is an arm of the department of Public Health. Murders and suicides fall under its purview. The CDC does far more than "disease control".

Quote:

I think there are vast differences between the cultures of Canada and U.S., comparing them on this issue feels pretty apples and oranges to me.

Not really. I've lived and worked in both countries. We integrate well. We eat the same food, enjoy the same sports, speak the same language, watch the same movies. Your neighbours to the north is quite similar to you. We own guns. It's just far more regulated here which has the end result of much lower gun ownership and therefore much lower murder rates and much lower suicide rates. Culturally, i think we're far less paranoid. We don't worry about a government uprising at all any time soon. And I personally don't worry about anyone coming into my home and raping someone as it hasn't happened here in the Falls in a very long time, and home invasions here in the Niagara region happen at the frequency of about 5 per year, and this in a city *with* casinos right next to a shithole over the bridge.

Quote:

I've not said that, I've asked why new laws you'd propose and how you imagine they'd be any different than all the other laws that people ignore.

The point that criminals have guns and therefore no new laws should be brought on is an escapist argument. Laws are made to prevent crime and to shape society. There will always be some degree of criminality in society. Let's get pass this. How do we get guns out of the hands of criminals? Now, I'm asking you. If the source of guns is straw purchases, then how do we reduce those? It's already illegal, so you step up enforcement. One way to step up enforcement is to make the person who bought the gun accountable for their gun. There are other ways as well, such as licensing. But frankly, without a registration and future checkpoint, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from giving their gun to someone else after they purchase it. Heck, even the future checkpoint will enable one to "lend" a gun. What else would you suggest to enforce straw purchases, or is it just a lost cause.

Quote: Monkey

If I were to write what I'm really feeling right now I'd probably be banned for life. Suffice to say I think you should chose your remarks a little more carefully.

I have suggested new laws, all of which have been shot down by the libertarians because they will be ineffective or infringe on their rights somehow. Some of the things I have suggested may indeed have no effect but to infringe on one's rights, and that's probably not a good thing. I've suggested education as well and proposals to make guns safer. This at least will reduce the accident and suicide rates among the legal gun owners.

Guns that are already in criminal hands, well, that's a more formidable problem for the police forces and the forces of society to resolve. How do you get criminals from wanting to stop commiting crimes? Well, catch them in the act and jail them first off. Secondly, rehab them and give them opportunities so that they don't become a lifetime criminal. Thirdly, make society better so that criminals don't form in the first place.

New York City has been extremely successful in lowering their murder rate over the last 30 years -- why can't that be replicated in other big cities? What did they do right?

One can only presume that if one holds the position that no new laws is the right thing to do and not suggest anything else to improve the situation, then frankly, you don't care. Because if you did care, you would come up with suggestions rather than spending all of your time shooting down this leftist liberal from the tyrannical socialist commune wacka-doodle country known as Canada.

Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Quote: Face's stuff

Good and reasonable points

I fully support smarter gun owners. It doesn't resolve the "criminals who have guns" issue but it might reduce accidents, murders out of "passion", and suicides. Presenting the potential gun owners with statistics on gun accidents, gun suicides, and murders might give them a sense of reason -- enough for them to keep guns away from high risks (ie, your kids with mental health problems, locked away (especially if you live in a low crime area), and unloaded (with the bullets close enough by for the most paranoid).

In Ontario, Firearms safety courses are regulated by the Ontario Firearms Safety Assoication and the maximum you can be charged for a course, the test, and the handbook is $155, which I think is very reasonable.

I could see the gun industry being forced to submit to regulations to subsidize the education of gun owners but I could never see anyone in government pushing it through due to the very heavy lobbying by the NRA and gun manufacturers to kibash it. Obama would then make gun owners pay for the course entirely which although would be fought vehemently by the lobbies but may still pass.

For the preexisting gun owners under the new regulation they just take the written test for $40 (and if they fail retake the course ($115)).

Perhaps a partnership with the gun manufacturers to offer a rebate of the test fee on every gun sold might lower the cost of the course, but it's still a tax, regulated by some agency.

Quote: AZDuffman

I guess you don't remember the Rodney King Riots? Watts Riots? Multiple MLK Riots? Multiple G-8/20/whatever riots?

But it doesn't matter, "need" has nothing to do with it. If you want such a gun to defend yourself in case of civil disorder you should be free to get one. As long as you do not use it for crime you are hurting nobody. I get nervous when people suggest the government decides what I "need."

And how many of these riots were you at? And what do you think would have happened to you if you would have pulled your gun out? And how would have those riots turned out if the rioters were all carrying (some with armor carrying bullets).

I will concede however that if you live in LA, by all means, buy a freaking gun, especially if you lived anywhere near where the riots took place.

Quote: Maverick17

Wrong again..... Quill pens and parchment paper, bro.

Actually, the colonists imported pencils from Europe, and George Washington had used one. True, pencils weren't the standard writing instruments of the day, but I only used them as an example since most people today probably don't even know what a quill is. ;)

Booty call gone all wrong. Not that anyone in this story was a responsible gun owner being attacked by an angry mob in Watts but the guy did find someone invading his home and fired a lot of bullets. How did that work out?

Quote: s2dbaker

Booty call gone all wrong. Not that anyone in this story was a responsible gun owner being attacked by an angry mob in Watts but the guy did find someone invading his home and fired a lot of bullets. How did that work out?

Well, if somebody doesn't want a gun in their home they are free not to have one. Have you ever considered that?

Quote: s2dbaker

Booty call gone all wrong. Not that anyone in this story was a responsible gun owner being attacked by an angry mob in Watts but the guy did find someone invading his home and fired a lot of bullets. How did that work out?

http://newstalkcleveland.com/2474864/cleveland-home-invasion-tenant-shot-and-killed/

If only this man lived in a city/state/country where home invasions were illegal he would not be dead right now. How did that work out?

http://www.cantonrep.com/carousel/x1896978485/Meat-market-robbery-ends-in-gun-battle

If only these two criminals knew that they were not allowed to own guns because they were criminals, they never would have been shot by a legal gun owner when they committed criminal acts. What we need to do here is educate the criminals, learn them some knowledge that they are not allowed to own guns because they are convicted criminals. How did that work out?

Quote: Maverick17

http://www.cantonrep.com/carousel/x1896978485/Meat-market-robbery-ends-in-gun-battle

If only these two criminals knew that they were not allowed to own guns because they were criminals, they never would have been shot by a legal gun owner when they committed criminal acts. What we need to do here is educate the criminals, learn them some knowledge that they are not allowed to own guns because they are convicted criminals. How did that work out?

Maybe just tell the crooks they don't "need" agin and if they have one to keep it in a safe with a trigger lock?

Quote: Maverick17

Quote: s2dbaker

Booty call gone all wrong. Not that anyone in this story was a responsible gun owner being attacked by an angry mob in Watts but the guy did find someone invading his home and fired a lot of bullets. How did that work out?

http://newstalkcleveland.com/2474864/cleveland-home-invasion-tenant-shot-and-killed/

If only this man lived in a city/state/country where home invasions were illegal he would not be dead right now. How did that work out?

As Az says, Sometimes you have to read between the lines. And the other link leads nowhere.

Quote: AZDuffman

Maybe just tell the crooks they don't "need" agin and if they have one to keep it in a safe with a trigger lock?

That would be the start I suppose. Gotta think like a liberal. We will nit pik our way right up the hole of your ass until we are the ones eating the steak going down your throat, leaving you hungry.

Start with a trigger lock and pretty soon you will be paying me for the "right" not to have a butter knife. Good thought, rub those rich conservatives bellies. They are too busy shooting their guns and actually making money to see what is happening!!!

This far left thought process is truly liberating, maybe that's why they consider my kind "liberal"

Quote: s2dbaker

Quote: Maverick17

Quote: s2dbaker

Booty call gone all wrong. Not that anyone in this story was a responsible gun owner being attacked by an angry mob in Watts but the guy did find someone invading his home and fired a lot of bullets. How did that work out?

http://newstalkcleveland.com/2474864/cleveland-home-invasion-tenant-shot-and-killed/

If only this man lived in a city/state/country where home invasions were illegal he would not be dead right now. How did that work out?

As Az says, Sometimes you have to read between the lines. And the other link leads nowhere.

You know you have to click the link, I can only give you my money and guns, I can't stop what I am doing, fly to Westbumfuckistan and teach you how to use a mouse too. There are plenty of other educated people willing to give you free shit in your town I am sure can help. Call Obama, I hear he is waiting for your call.

Here's a fun one. Child blows dad's brains out while fending off an angry mob of prarie dogs near Watts.