Were The Bombers Responsible Gun Owners

I didn't accuse you of being a pedophile, I asked you if that's what you wanted or were defending. HUGE HUGE difference.

Bullshit (and if you believe that you shoudl pay closer attention to who gets banned and why), but I am not doing anything about it. I think you really showed that you can't take getting beat in a debate though. And btw, you got beat.
 
No that's not absolute. I could say that since 10% of the country are pedophiles their "rights" must be protected. Only certain rights. They have no right to have sex with children, and criminals have no right to be armed. It's simple. Kinda like Dick and Jane stuff.

I wonder why STY's not clamoring in defense of convicted felon's second amendment rights? I thought it was absolute?
 
I don't think the 90% poll was wrong desh... it was taken at a different time, closer to the tragedy at Sandy Hook. It combined with the one I posted that was a few months later highlights the knee jerk reaction many have after a tragedy. It shows their animosity is driven by emotion, not reason. Which is why the fear mongers tried to pass legislation so quickly while walking on the graves of the victims.

What is the poll now, after the bombing when everyone went running for their guns?

I bet the majority still wants background checks. If it isn't 90%, it is still over 50%.
 
I don't think the 90% poll was wrong desh... it was taken at a different time, closer to the tragedy at Sandy Hook. It combined with the one I posted that was a few months later highlights the knee jerk reaction many have after a tragedy. It shows their animosity is driven by emotion, not reason. Which is why the fear mongers tried to pass legislation so quickly while walking on the graves of the victims.

Yep, majority still walking on the graves of the victims!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/background-checks-poll_n_3118847.html
 
What is the poll now, after the bombing when everyone went running for their guns?

I bet the majority still wants background checks. If it isn't 90%, it is still over 50%.

I bet the majority is still ignorant as to what background checks already exist. You still have Obama stating he wants checks on internet sales (which already happens). You still have people thinking the majority of gun show sales are without checks. Get rid of the false propaganda and have a real discussion, then maybe we can address the areas that can be upgraded.
 
I didn't accuse you of being a pedophile, I asked you if that's what you wanted or were defending. HUGE HUGE difference.

Yes, you absolutely did.

you have to show me anywhere in US case law history, US constitution, or any state constitution that even gives a HINT of a right to have sex with children.....or are you saying you want the right to have sex with children??

What a sick, sick person you are.
 

yep... the majority still ignorant of what laws actually already exist...

The poll found that 71 percent continue to favor requiring background checks at gun shows and for online sales

Online already exists. Yet the fear mongers use it as a way to scare the public into thinking this vast resource is wide open for criminals. I wonder why.
 
yep... the majority still ignorant of what laws actually already exist...



Online already exists. Yet the fear mongers use it as a way to scare the public into thinking this vast resource is wide open for criminals. I wonder why.

This is why:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html
The want ads posted by the anonymous buyer on Armslist.com, a sprawling free classified ads Web site for guns, telegraphed urgency.

Feb. 20: “ Got 250 cash for a good handgun something.reliable.”

Feb. 27: “ I got 200 250 cashlooking for a good handgun please let me know what u got.”

Feb. 28: “ Looking to buy some 9 mm ammo and not at a crazy price.”

The intentions and background of the prospective buyer were hidden, as is customary on such sites. The person posting these ads, however, left a phone number, enabling The New York Times to trace them to their source: Omar Roman-Martinez, 29, of Colorado Springs, who has a pair of felony convictions for burglary and another for motor vehicle theft, as well as a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction — all of which bar him from having guns. Yet he was so determined he even offered to trade a tablet computer or a vintage Pepsi machine for firearms.

When questioned in a telephone interview, Mr. Roman-Martinez said he ultimately decided not to buy a weapon. He also insisted that a 9-millimeter handgun he posted for sale on the Web site last month belonged to someone else.

“I’m a felon,” he said. “I can’t possess firearms.”

The mere fact that Mr. Roman-Martinez was seeking to buy and sell guns on Armslist underscores why extending background checks to the growing world of online sales has become a centerpiece of new gun legislation being taken up in the Senate this week. With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.
 
yep... the majority still ignorant of what laws actually already exist...



Online already exists. Yet the fear mongers use it as a way to scare the public into thinking this vast resource is wide open for criminals. I wonder why.

If we stop one deranged person from obtaining a gun, it is worth the inconvenience of a background check to me. If it stops even one person being murdered, it is worth the inconvenience to me.
 
If we stop one deranged person from obtaining a gun, it is worth the inconvenience of a background check to me. If it stops even one person being murdered, it is worth the inconvenience to me.

The background check at a dealer or a gun show (here) is not an inconvenience. On average it takes 20-25 minutes. I have no problem with background checks at shows or FFL's... we have them here and it is not a big deal. Again, if the left stops all the fear mongering and misinformation, then perhaps a legit discussion can be had on the issue.
 
The background check at a dealer or a gun show (here) is not an inconvenience. On average it takes 20-25 minutes. I have no problem with background checks at shows or FFL's... we have them here and it is not a big deal. Again, if the left stops all the fear mongering and misinformation, then perhaps a legit discussion can be had on the issue.

It's the right who is fear mongering - OBAMA COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!, not the left.
 
It's the right who is fear mongering - OBAMA COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!, not the left.

No Darla, it is the left that is consistently misrepresenting the current laws in order to pass more laws. It is the left that continues walking on the graves of the Sandy Hook victims to try and further a political agenda. It is the left that cannot explain how they think these laws will help. It is the left that has said over and over again that they want to BAN 'assault weapons' and 'large' mag clips. Then they use the victims of Sandy Hook, Aurora etc... and try to scare people into new bureaucracy.
 
No Darla, it is the left that is consistently misrepresenting the current laws in order to pass more laws. It is the left that continues walking on the graves of the Sandy Hook victims to try and further a political agenda. It is the left that cannot explain how they think these laws will help. It is the left that has said over and over again that they want to BAN 'assault weapons' and 'large' mag clips. Then they use the victims of Sandy Hook, Aurora etc... and try to scare people into new bureaucracy.

I disagree, it's the right who fear mongers on this issue, and leading the pack is the NRA who uses shrill, fear mongering while at the same time purchasing our whore politicians.
 
Clearly, you're joking.

No, I am not. When the left says 'Ban these guns/clip sizes', it is not fear mongering to say 'they want your guns'... they do. It is what they stated they wanted to do. The ignorance of the left on the gun issue is what leads them to the fear mongering.
 
Which shows what? Asking for good buys online does not mean he gets to purchase a gun. Nor does it mean the seller gets to avoid the online requirement for a background check.

Read on goofus:

Besides Mr. Roman-Martinez, the Times investigation led to Gerard Toolin, 46, of Walterboro, S.C., who is a fugitive from the Rhode Island police and has two outstanding felony warrants as well as a misdemeanor warrant. His legal status bars him from owning guns, but he was recently seeking to buy an AK-47 assault rifle on Armslist and was also trying to trade a Marlin rifle. He posted photos to his Facebook account of an AK-47 he had already purchased, along with a variety of other guns.

There was also Martin Fee, who has a domestic battery conviction in Florida and other arrests and convictions in Florida and New Jersey, including for drug possession, burglary and larceny. He was selling a Chinese SKS rifle on the classified section of another Web site, BudsGunShop.com.

The examination of Armslist raised questions about whether many sellers are essentially functioning as unlicensed firearms dealers, in contravention of federal law. The law says that people who “engage in the business” of selling firearms need to obtain a license and conduct background checks on customers. While the definition of engaging in business is vague, The Times found that more than two dozen people had posted more than 20 different guns for sale in a several-month span.

Among them was Joshua Lovejoy, 32, who since November has advertised more than 100 guns on Armslist, mostly in Canton, Ohio, ranging from AR-15 assault rifles to Glock 19 semiautomatic pistols. He once listed more than 20 guns in a single ad. He insisted in a telephone interview, however, that he had sold only a few.

Then there was Ron Metz, 49, who has advertised more than 80 guns from Anderson, S.C., since February. Mr. Metz said in an interview he had needed money, so he started selling some guns and trading for others. He also bought other guns, which he turned around and sold as well. He said he had no real idea how many he had sold, guessing that it was more than a dozen. He never keeps any records and does not do any background checks, explaining: “I can just sort of read people.”

What the site does do is make it simple for anyone seeking to buy a gun without a background check, enabling users to filter gun ads in their state by ones being sold by private parties.

Federal law places one significant restriction on transactions among private parties, barring people from directly selling guns to people in other states who are not licensed firearms dealers. Licensed dealers must act as intermediaries in transactions across state lines and perform background checks. But an examination of ads on the Web site shows that illegal interstate transactions can occur.

An ad for a “new in box” Ruger rifle posted on April 1 in Indianapolis stated that if the buyer was out of state, the seller would ship to the buyer’s “front door,” “person to private person.”

The loose online atmosphere was evident in the case of an Arizona gun dealer, Walter Young, who pleaded guilty last week to a federal gun charge stemming from an investigation into his sale of a .50-caliber rifle, dozens of gun kits and thousands of rounds of ammunition to an anonymous buyer who contacted him on Gunbroker.com.

Mr. Young — a Tea Party activist who posted a YouTube video in February suggesting he was being persecuted for criticizing the government — told federal agents he shipped everything to an address in Texas near the Mexican border, without even knowing the identity of the recipient, according to court records. After initially lying to investigators, he admitted looking the other way in his online dealings, records show.

“Young stated there was a general ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy in the gun world when it came to wanting to know why a person was purchasing a particular item, and for that reason he did not question people he sold items to,” federal prosecutors said in a court filing.


Oh, look!
In 2011, Dmitry Smirnov, a Canadian resident, contacted Benedict Ladera, from Kent, Wash., via Armslist, expressing interest in a Smith & Wesson .40-caliber pistol that Mr. Ladera had posted for sale.

Mr. Ladera, who had sold about 20 guns on Armslist over the previous year, agreed to meet at a casino but increased the price of the handgun to $600, from $400, because he was from out of state, according to court records. After buying the gun, Mr. Smirnov drove to Chicago, where he stalked Jitka Vesel, a woman he had briefly dated a few years earlier, and on April 13, 2011, shot and killed her. Mr. Smirnov turned himself into authorities and was later sentenced to life in prison.

Federal authorities also arrested Mr. Ladera, who pleaded guilty to making an illegal transfer of a firearm to a nonstate resident and was sentenced to one year in prison. Last year, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Armslist on behalf of Ms. Vesel’s family.


Here's the thing, SF. The day you gun suckers get your lips off the shaft and realize there is a common ground solution to this problem then things will get better.
 
Back
Top