Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

[metis]

My previous response was made out of pure frustration and being a little ticked off.

Ah, but you support a candidate, namely Donald Trump, that calls people names, makes fun of a person who's handicapped, accuses people of things they didn't do, etc. But you get "ticked off" just because I asked some questions, and yet you endorse what Trump's been doing.

So, one can logically conclude that it's fine and dandy with you for someone other than you to be called names, made fun of, and/or falsely accused, but don't anyone here dare to ask even some uncomfortable questions of you because you might get "ticked off".

 

[Underhill]

As I replied to metis in the above it is the responsibility of that state to enforce their own laws. Take for instance the state of CA. If a non-resident moves into that state then they must abide by CA laws...they can not bring contraband into that state.. If a resident goes into, in your example NV, and purchases a firearm that is illegal in CA then they have violated CA law. Note, a licensed dealer in NV will not ship a illegal firearm into CA.
Why don't you read U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 before you post something. regarding firearm laws.

Isn't it the pro-gun people that are quick to point out that criminals don't obey the laws?

I know it's illegal to transport guns across state lines. But living 7 miles from the state border I can tell you that it happens every day with no oversight and no arrest. I would think it is obvious that they are virtually impossible to enforce unless the states put in check points at every border crossing, something I (along with most of the country) am dead set against.

This is one country. For gun laws to have any impact they need to be nationally executed. Even then they won't be close to 100% as there are so many guns out there now it's hard to see a way to keep them out of the hands of serious criminals.

 

[tytlyf]

Due process only refers to being convicted of a crime. Being on the watch list isn't a crime. That's the difference and why your point is invalid.

Concerning Mexico, they're not smuggling guns into the US. It's the other way around.

 

[metis]

Isn't it the pro-gun people that are quick to point out that criminals don't obey the laws?

I know it's illegal to transport guns across state lines. But living 7 miles from the state border I can tell you that it happens every day with no oversight and no arrest. I would think it is obvious that they are virtually impossible to enforce unless the states put in check points at every border crossing, something I (along with most of the country) am dead set against.

This is one country. For gun laws to have any impact they need to be nationally executed. Even then they won't be close to 100% as there are so many guns out there now it's hard to see a way to keep them out of the hands of serious criminals.

And we know it can be done and it actually has been done. Both the Brits and French in the 1950's cracked down on gun ownership, and mere possession of an illegal gun in GB could land one 10 years in prison, although usually that lengthy a sentence wasn't given unless done in the commission of a crime. The end result was a gradual reduction in the number of guns in circulation, leaving both the Brits and French with a homicide rate about 1/4 per 100,000 people as compared to what we have in the States.

 

[Underhill]

And we know it can be done and it actually has been done. Both the Brits and French in the 1950's cracked down on gun ownership, and mere possession of an illegal gun in GB could land one 10 years in prison, although usually that lengthy a sentence wasn't given unless done in the commission of a crime. The end result was a gradual reduction in the number of guns in circulation, leaving both the Brits and French with a homicide rate about 1/4 per 100,000 people as compared to what we have in the States.

The problem with that is simple. We will never ban guns to the extent that these countries have. At least not any time in the near future. This means we are simply looking at regulating who can get them. This will help, but there is no good way to eliminate the gun problem in this country with the sheer number of them out there.

 

[metis]

The problem with that is simple. We will never ban guns to the extent that these countries have. At least not any time in the near future. This means we are simply looking at regulating who can get them. This will help, but there is no good way to eliminate the gun problem in this country with the sheer number of them out there.

I agree in general, but I don't think we should just throw up our hands and give up.

The single greatest problem is not with the assault-type weapons but with handguns, which are the killing tool of choice, especially with the criminal element. To deter this, having fewer licenses to carry is one step, but it has to be matched with another step of having stiff penalties for those who carry illegally. If this is done, even though the process tends to be a slow one, nevertheless we do know that it can have some positive results going by what has been done in some other countries.

The excessive proliferation of guns is killing us-- literally.

 

[esmith]

Ah, but you support a candidate, namely Donald Trump, that calls people names, makes fun of a person who's handicapped, accuses people of things they didn't do, etc. But you get "ticked off" just because I asked some questions, and yet you endorse what Trump's been doing.

So, one can logically conclude that it's fine and dandy with you for someone other than you to be called names, made fun of, and/or falsely accused, but don't anyone here dare to ask even some uncomfortable questions of you because you might get "ticked off".

No I was not ticked off at you or anything having to do with this forum. We all have our bad days and it was one of those days with an accumulation of "ah ****"

 

[tytlyf]

No I was not ticked off at you or anything having to do with this forum. We all have our bad days and it was one of those days with an accumulation of "ah ****"

Why are conservatives soooo angry? Who is teaching them to be angry? If you had 1 answer, what would you say the #1 thing that is making conservatives angry?

 

[Underhill]

I agree in general, but I don't think we should just throw up our hands and give up.

The single greatest problem is not with the assault-type weapons but with handguns, which are the killing tool of choice, especially with the criminal element. To deter this, having fewer licenses to carry is one step, but it has to be matched with another step of having stiff penalties for those who carry illegally. If this is done, even though the process tends to be a slow one, nevertheless we do know that it can have some positive results going by what has been done in some other countries.

The excessive proliferation of guns is killing us-- literally.

I agree with all that. I think permits for all handguns and assault rifles would make sense, as would regulations on the proper storage of firearms.

 

[esmith]

Why are conservatives soooo angry? Who is teaching them to be angry? If you had 1 answer, what would you say the #1 thing that is making conservatives angry?

you

 

[tytlyf]

you

I assumed that, I have a different way of expressing things. My intent is to make you think. What I say isn't repeated by any media outlets, its from careful observation.

 

[McBell]

Why are conservatives soooo angry? Who is teaching them to be angry? If you had 1 answer, what would you say the #1 thing that is making conservatives angry?

not getting their way

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is NO simple answer to your questions as you well know.



Answer: Yes all people should be allowed to purchase firearms in according with the existing statutes


Answer: If a person is purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer yes.
Answer: If a person is purchasing a firearm from a private party then the existing statues apply.


Answer Yes as long as one follows the existing statutes.
In addition you inclusion of certain weapons is beneath your education and common sense.


One should be able to purchase as many firearms for their personal use as they desire or (in my case) finances dictate.

I like how many times you used the phrase "existing statutes". It's a bizarre coincidence that the gun laws currently in place managed to exactly match your views on what they should be. You wouldn't change a thing?

 

[esmith]

I like how many times you used the phrase "existing statutes". It's a bizarre coincidence that the gun laws currently in place managed to exactly match your views on what they should be. You wouldn't change a thing?

Nope. That is until start rigidly enforcing the existing ones then I would be open to a reasonable discussion on the issue.

 

[metis]

Nope. That is until start rigidly enforcing the existing ones then I would be open to a reasonable discussion on the issue.

I would say that 49 Americans now dead with 30+ still hospitalized just in one shooting alone is pretty good justification for have "a reasonable discussion on the issue". It's not like this just happened out of the blue with nothing like it happening before, and I would say that 30,000+ Americans dying from gun violence per year is a good reason to have this conversation.

 

[McBell]

I like how many times you used the phrase "existing statutes". It's a bizarre coincidence that the gun laws currently in place managed to exactly match your views on what they should be. You wouldn't change a thing?

I do as well.
It tends to drive home that the existing statutes should be enforced before passing random political motions that serve no purpose other than to make a bunch of ignorant people feel better.

 

[esmith]

I would say that 49 Americans now dead with 30+ still hospitalized just in one shooting alone is pretty good justification for have "a reasonable discussion on the issue". It's not like this just happened out of the blue with nothing like it happening before, and I would say that 30,000+ Americans dying from gun violence per year is a good reason to have this conversation.

Enforce the existing laws then have the discussion. If they will not rigidly enforce the existing laws what makes you think that making new laws would be enforced?
Got an answer for that?

 

[metis]

I do as well.
It tends to drive home that the existing statutes should be enforced before passing random political motions that serve no purpose other than to make a bunch of ignorant people feel better.

Can we walk and chew gum at the same time? [hint-hint]

 

[metis]

Enforce the existing laws then have the discussion. If they will not rigidly enforce the existing laws what makes you think that making new laws would be enforced?
Got an answer for that?

See my previous post.

 

[esmith]

See my previous post.

Not an answer and you know it. Making jokes is not an answer.