Do white people benefit the most from gun-control?

And you must be Russian. It's the eyes. Lol

 

I would say what it is about you that gives you away, but I would be banned for saying it even if it is the truth. Lol!

 

Most mass shooters have NO criminal records. So . . . how do you determine WHO should and should not have their rights, and does this affect their other rights as well or just the ones you don't like?

 

It is incredibly hard in some countries to buy untraceable guns. Here you can shop for them online

 

Hey, bubba: I'm not the one who suggest the ATF agent going to a gun
show attended by thousands of people was worth a bucket of warm spit.

Here's the thing: you can hire a hundred off duty cops if you like as long
as your admission price covers the bill and you still have overpaid security
guards that can't do squat if the law allows people to sell firearms to felons
and wife beaters through private sales.

 

that is like saying we can stop drug addiction if people just wouldn't smoke crack or shoot up smack

duh. But criminals are going to get the guns and none of the solutions the BM make are going to stop that. Its all about harassing lawful gun owners

 

and those sales have to go through a licensed dealer if the weapon moves through the mail or a common carrier or crosses state lines

 

I think some people have never even heard of Armslist......the criminals best friend

 

Why do you keep bringing up mass shooters?

The person mostly to get shot is the woman of the man who said he needed
to buy a gun to keep his family safe.

The purpose of universal background checks is to apply the same scrutiny
in private sales that are done now and have been done without problem for
twenty years.

You can require the background check or you could do it my way and make
sure that anyone who sells a firearm for any reason to someone on the list
gets sent to prison and not allowed to possess a gun again.

 

Bubba? Was that supposed to be clever or something? How stupid. Lol.

The fact remains that criminals are going to BREAK your laws. Getting it yet? What is the definition of "criminal?"

 

Or go to almost anyone gun show and look for one of these posters who insist
they know a prohibited person just by looking at him.

 

Who said this? Are you making up stories now? The fact of the matter is, you can have all the background checks in the world and that isn't going to stop mass shootings from happening.

 

It's almost as if they demand to protect the rights of criminals to buy guns

 

Gosh... people are going to break laws so I guess we don't need any laws.

Try to keep up.

 

the BM believes in prior restraint

serious crimes (Malum per se) like murder, robbery and rape-society has determined that severe punishment after you commit said crime is sufficient to deter enough of those crimes for the good of society. We don't say frisk everyone walking down the street to see if they have a gun and a ski mask in their pockets before they go into a bank. we don't check guys leaving bars with chicks for duct tape, condoms etc to stop rape. But the BM thinks we need to harass millions of Americans to supposedly deter the Malum Prohibitum (i.e. something that is illegal merely because the law says it is-rather than being something that is objectively evil like murder or forcible rape: malum per se) crime of a bad guy obtaining a gun,

in other words, to the BM gun possession by a felon is a more serious crime than murder, robbery rape, kidnapping arson or mayhem

 

wrong-you want to pass laws that are designed to harass people who don't commit real crimes and pretend those laws are going to deter those who already break laws that punish actual crimes

 

Just imagine, the killer now . . . planning for months and months to commit his murder, planning of course on going to the nearest "gun free" zone that he can find. Oh but wait! He decides to forget about it because he can't pass the background check. Yay!

 

So you haven't heard of NICS?

 

All laws are designed to harass law abiding people. I will never bomb a plane but I still have to take my shoes off at the airports. My rights!! Lol

 

Does that answer the question in my post? No it does not. Answer the question please.

 

I get searched before going into the super bowl. This is prior restraint!! My rights!! Lol

 

MOD EDIT>>>FLAME BAIT<<<

Most gun gnutters whine about the 2nd Amendment but the !st Amendment
comes before the 2nd.

Do you want to see a picture?

90 percent of Americans believe that have RIGHT to be protected from
MORONS who sell deadly weapons to people they don't know without
doing a background check.

You do not have a right to sell weapons and put my life and the lives of
everyone else in danger just because you want to make a couple bucks.

And if you like: you don't have any RIGHTS to sell firearms at all.

 

criminal
A criminal is someone who breaks the law. If you're a murderer, thief, or tax cheat, you're a criminal.


So, since when is someone who is planning on committing a mass murder going to submit to a background check? They will not. They will get a straw purchaser or they will obtain their weapon through the black market, or they will steal the weapon. The laws ONLY affect the law abiding citizens, and this is one of our constitutional rights we are talking about. This is a serious matter. You'd better have some damn good evidence that MOST Americans would commit murder or are unfit to own a weapon.

 

I guess you just aren't able to understand that those people are going to sell felons guns anyway. You are unable to understand that your right to life is protected by laws against murder. I certainly have the right to sell firearms. and if it upsets you-so much the better. and i don't believe for a second that your constant complaints about gun ownership is based on your irrational fear that some felon is going to get a gun from a private seller and shoot you. Its obvious your motivation is that you hate the politics of gun owners

 

Grow up. You have no evidence of these statements. If you feel your life is in danger, that is your own problem and your own paranoia. Yes, people DO in fact have the right to sell firearms. Even sometimes felons can sell their firearms.

Again, know what you're talking about before you post!

What did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a court (such as the federal district court that heard the case) has the authority to rule that the Government turn over firearms owned by a felon to someone that felon designates. The court that so rules may require the proposed designee to promise to not let the felon have access to the guns. If the court is not reassured by the designee’s promises, the court may decline a request for a particular designee so that the felon must find another recipient.

What was the Supreme Court’s reasoning?
The Government had argued that 18 U.S.C. §922(g) takes away a felon’s capacity to specify who the recipient of his firearms would be. By their argument, specifying a recipient gives a felon too much control over his firearms. However, when the Government conceded that a felon could have his firearms transferred to a licensed dealer who intended to sell them, that weakened its case.

The Supreme Court said that when firearms in the Government’s possession are transferred to the owner’s designee, the owner is not really in possession of them because he does not know when or where the transfer will happen and is not involved in the mechanics of the transfer in any way. Such a transaction would be outside the scope of what §922(g) forbids.

In the third footnote in the opinion, the Supreme Court points out that this decision and rationale only apply to transfers of firearms in which the Government has possession of the firearms. This would not apply when the Government did not have possession of the firearms and the felon, without actually touching the guns, controlled where and when they would be transferred through a third party. (Controlling something without actually possessing it is known as “constructive possession.”)