The chilling resemblance between ISIS indoctrination and Eddie Eagle

So?

 

You are back to 'people break laws so there shouldn't be any laws'.

I cannot be expected to explain idiotic logic.

Anymore than I can understand the mentality of someone who insists he should be able to sell firearms to strangers without doing a background check.

Happy to suggest that anyone who sells a firearm without a background check be held responsible for how the firearm is subsequently used.

You?

 

If they break the law: You put them on trial in front of a jury.

I say "over here" because you do not seem to know anything about the US justice system.

Is this the third time?

 

Nothing like a silly response. Such nonsense doesn't resonate with anyone rational.

 

That 40% figure came from a survey before the Brady Act was passed and background checks were required. That 4% is the compliance rate you can expect.

 

How do you catch someone? How do you tell if a firearm in their possession was acquired via a background check or not?

 

No, it's back to why do you want a law that cannot be enforced without registration?

Again, that's not the issue. The issue is being required to conduct expensive background checks to loan a gun to a friend, or give one to a CCW holder or sell one to one's own brother, when they already own guns. Society is not served by these types of requirements, yet every UBC proposed has them.

How do you prove that the seller sold the gun without making the buyer get a background check? Straw purchasers do this already and they aren't prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Back alley dealer do this and they don't get caught.

Do you support giving sellers and buyers direct access to NICS for private sales background checks?

What transfers would be exempt from your UBC requirement?

 

Registration

 

Umm Colorado... and how's that going?
http://www.denverpost.com/2013/06/08/colorado-sheriffs-wrestle-with-new-gun-laws-in-differing-ways/

The often repeated 40% figure is pulled from thin air. No one knows how many guns are privately sold vs sold via an FFL. One study I looked at some time ago attributed the 40% to a study of how many booths they had at a gun show vs the number of vendor booths to arrive at the 40% figure, but didn't filter for those selling accessories, knives or other products and not guns. The other place I have seen this figure is from the following fellow...

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...ffe-says-40-percent-gun-sales-escape-backgro/

To hold to that figure is blatantly dishonest. Without being able to track private sales how could anyone produce a figure?

 

Yep, there it is; that's the answer l figured eventually emerge from that question. It's the underlying objective. The call for a UBC hides that agenda. It is why UBC has the resistance it does, it is dishonest on its face. It is precisely the creep tactic that was used in Britain...
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/files/slope.htm
And Anti's wonder why no one believes what they say...I, and I figure I am not alone, say 'Stuff it'

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/1/nevadas-universal-gun-background-check-law-deemed-/

A universal gun background check measure, approved by Nevada voters and touted as a victory by gun control advocates, was supposed to take effect after the clock struck midnight Saturday and residents rang in the new year.

But the FBI and Nevada’s attorney general, calling the initiative unenforceable, have put it on hold indefinitely.

Do you wish to recant your initial statement? Or do you intend to double down, and proclaim that the FBI, and the attorney general for the state of Nevada have no idea of what they are speaking about?

Prove such.

Telling the public to not own firearms is not a viable alternative. Expecting adults to keep firearms secured is not a viable alternative. Nothing has been presented on the part of yourself except hatred for the Eddie Eagle program.

Then if you believe that absolutely nothing can be more effective than what is in place, cease your pointless complaining, or figure out a viable, workable alternative that does not involve telling the public to not own firearms.

Such has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

And yet it has been witnessed that there are those who do believe that such is a safe method of firearms storage. Even if such is not accurate, they believe that it is indeed accurate and adequate.

Is it necessary to explain such to you?

Unless the prosecutor decides not to pursue charges, because they believe any such attempt will result in the jury returning a verdict of not guilty, even if the statute that would justify a conviction is blatant. Prosecutors will not pursue charges for cases unless they are certain that victory is a possibility, because failure hurts their reputations.

Such arrests are rare. Prosecutions are rarer still.

Meaning something that can only be utilized once the firearm has already been unloaded, and rendered incapable of causing harm.

Something the united state supreme court has already determined cannot be mandated, because such interferes with the constitutional right of using a firearm for self defense. According to them during the Heller ruling, even a three second delay is an unconstitutional infringement.

The physical differences are indeed understood. What apparently is not understood on the part of yourself, however, is that the owner of the firearm or firearms will determine for themselves what they feel is adequate. Even if their methods of storage are inadequate according to yourself, you have no say in the matter, as they have made the determination for themselves. And since successful prosecutions for violations are so rare, to the point they are almost nonexistent, nothing will come about of your proposals. Therefore there has been nothing offered on the part of yourself, other than telling the public to refrain from exercising their constitutional rights.

 

I didn't say what you said. Someone else may have but it wasn't me.
Thus, with your ad hom, you conceded the point, just like I said.

 

Clearly, you don't understand his question.
To enforce the law, the state must prove the law was broken.
Absent self-incrimination or a sting operation, this cannot be done as there is no way to prove a sale took place after the UBC went into effect.
For whatever reason, you chose to not understand this.

 

There you go again, trying to deny the truth with nonsense.

Ah -- good that you remember you talking points.
Tell us: How are nuclear weapons relevant in a conversation regarding the 2nd Amendment, given current jurisprudence?

 

Prove this
Be sure to account for the denials that were later reversed.
The tell how many of the denials were prosecuted for a federal felony.

Because you can.

 

Just to be sure - you're claiming that 40% of all firearm sales in the US each year are private sales to complete strangers who wish to avoid background checks.

Please provide cite, and include how many of those who wish to avoid background are actually prohibited persons.

 

Now how did I miss this nonsense. Wow.

 

He already has guns. Who'd take the word of a murderer, and why would the State bargain to reduce the sentence of a murder for a 2nd degree misdemeanor.

Also, when I loaned the guns to him, it was under the impression he'd only keep them for 3 days. That's legal.

 

I don't think you have much of a case unless you reported them as stolen to the police

 

its a stupid argument. very few criminals get weapons from people they don't know. most criminals get weapons from people who know the buyer or possessor is a criminal. its one of those facts that the bannerrhoid movement pretends don't exist but we who are law enforcement know it. The fast majority of criminals get guns from other criminals or straw purchasers (who are criminals too btw)

gun haters make up scenarios that have very little to do with reality

even more laughable is that gun banners pretend that crime control is what motivates them. That is why I call the gun banner movement (BM) the most dishonest political movement in the USA.

 

Wow! a dozen or so! Among the two thousand people in the building, let's say 1 out of five can't legally buy a weapon and all your off duty DEA, FBI and ATF can't do anything about it since they aren't doing the sales themselves.

HAHAHAHA!.

Pardon me for a sec, I want to put on my boots.

And yet you still want to sell complete strangers firearms, surrounded by hundreds of felons who can't legally touch a firearm.

 

well then show us the facts that felons are getting their guns from gun shows. You cannot. so you fail. HUNDREDS OF FELONS IN A GUN SHOW=where does this nonsense come from?

 

That musta been an invisible fact eh, cause no one saw it. It's more like .5 percent

 

Quick observation. Eddie Eagle doesn't kidnap, or round up war orphans do they? I mean, that's how ISIS operates isn't it? Preying upon grieving orphans, or snatching kids away from their homes.

 

Show us who IS getting the firearms.

Oh right, you can't .

You don't know.

You don't know who is buying guns.

You do know felons are attending gun shows because there are no restrictions on who can attend.

Or who can buy weapons.