B1G Red

Tried that once, it was called prohibition, and it made everyone quit drinking, NOT. And drinking wasn't a constitutionally guaranteed right, unless you count "the pursuit of happiness" which to some is the same as consumption of alcohol. LOL.

I was more referring to your charges that Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, and other "slimeball" politicians that have, apparently, all tried to "ban all firearms". When, in fact, nothing of the sort has happened. To be fair, I called the politicians I support slimebags also, it's an opinion I have of most politicians once they get beyond the school board or local mayor.

How about we make it simpler than limiting who can sell at a gun show: Instant background check required for all gun show sales. The NRA used to support that. Now they act like it's tyranny. I've never sold a gun to anyone who I didn't know, except to a FFL dealer. So within the bounds of a gun show, if a dealer could facilitate a transfer between individuals on a normal yellow form, then I probably would not object. Cause I don;t know if the other guy is a felon or a nut job. So I don't like the intrusion, but would probably live with it.

Um Joe Biden just told people to go buy a shotgun, so I think not... and gun rights have expanded under the obama/biden tenure. expanded only through the Supreme Court, resisted by current administration. Not expanded through legislation. Do you have sources for any of your wild speculative charges? If so, I think it would be useful for the rest of us to see where you are getting your misinformation from. The fact that the present administration or senate have not introduced a single federal law that expands 2nd amendment rights, isn't speculative, How can I source something that doesn't exist.

You probably mean not expanded by federal legislation, right? IIRC concealed carry rights are increasing. I agree.

That's incorrect. http://www.salon.com...kground_checks/ "Closing the gun show loophole" = background checks for guns purchased at gun shows. Gun sales at gun shows have the same background checks you have if you buy the gun in the dealers store. All require the yellow form background check. For the last 10 years or so. The only non-background sales at a gun show or anywhere else are private person to private person. Uh huh. I've been to a few . . . and I trust that you have as well, right? If so, would you explain the difference between a "private seller" with 30 guns on his table and the "dealer" with 30 guns on his table? If they want to limit tables to FFL holders, so be it. But if they want to register a transaction between me and my neighbor or friend, then I do not agree.

Um Joe Biden just told people to go buy a shotgun, so I think not... and gun rights have expanded under the obama/biden tenure. expanded only through the Supreme Court, resisted by current administration. Not expanded through legislation.

That's incorrect. http://www.salon.com...kground_checks/ "Closing the gun show loophole" = background checks for guns purchased at gun shows. Gun sales at gun shows have the same background checks you have if you buy the gun in the dealers store. All require the yellow form background check. For the last 10 years or so. The only non-background sales at a gun show or anywhere else are private person to private person.

Just to start, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, and although not an elected politician, a billioniare named Soros.

Registration of person to person transfers creates in effect a gun registration, in itself a key component of banning guns. I'm much more concerned about the concepts of registration and the concept of "approved purposes" and showing "need" that are usually put into the "common sense" argument.

What really offends me is slimebag politicians on one side using a tragedy to further an adgenda which includes total bans on all firearms. So I'm forced to support the slimebag politicians who oppose them in order to force a stalemate. Knapp, I think you've overstepped what you know about me in stating I shouldn't have a gun. I don't have a short fuse in that I would never raise a hand against anyone except in self defense. But I am politically passionate on some issues.

The NRA has backed background checks, and so do I. But what they have recently resisted is "universal" background checks, AKA "closing the gunshow loophole", which has nothing to do with gun shows, but is a ban on private person to person transfer of firearms.

Here it is, and it's what set me off on this thread. (I added the bold)

knapp said it a couple pages ago

"almost have a point" was a thin attempt at saying I can understand that a reasonable person could hold your views, I just don't agree.

So you're saying the 2nd Amendment has no merit? Interesting. ???? No, exactly the opposite. Pointing out the failed logic in combining the term "common sense" with gun control. It is what it is, an all out attack on the 2nd amendment.

If only there were "common sense" in any law, that wouldn't end up in the "make them all go away" strategy you elluded to earlier, then you would almost have a point.

"Per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)" So your point is technically correct, less could die by gun, but more would die in total. Groovy.

Don't have to believe me, the people at Harvard University are smarter than me, and probably you too. Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The evil to kill resides in people, not in an inantimate object. Get rid of the object (the gun), the evil still exists.

Put 1000 people in a room with bricks, how many die by bricks? So what is the common denominator? Guns, Bricks, or PEOPLE?

Have no interest in a thread about violence, have intense interest in a thread about gun control, which is a bad idea. Gun control = misleading feel good topic which will solve nothing.

I could not disagree more with your assertion that gun control will curtail gun violence. If a law prevented murders, then the existing law against murder would suffice. Hence my argument that gun control will do nothing more to reduce gun deaths, than current laws making murder illegal already stop murders.

Gun Ciontrol, If you only want parrots of your opinion, chang the OP to read "only post here if you agree" I'm expressing my view that gun control is not the answer.

Becasue. Limiting. The. discussion. fits. YOUR. adgenda.