Gun control debate (merged)

#7,376
#7,376
TN Ribs said:
Yes, exactly like that. It doesn't change the fact that the NRA chose to deceive their followers on twitter with propaganda.
Click to expand...

How exactly did they do that? Did he pass the background check originally? Was he supposed to "turn in" his firearms?

Oh, did he break the law? Did he ignore what he was supposed to do? Say that ain't so! I mean, I wouldn't think potential criminals would avoid the law and do their part in being upstanding citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and tennvols77
#7,380
#7,380
Grand Vol said:
Has less to do with murder than it does with possession of a firearm...
Click to expand...
Both statements are accurate. The individual would probably ignore the firearm possession laws even if he harbored no murderous intent. But once they contemplated murder any firearm possssion violation becomes noise I think.
 
#7,381
#7,381
NorthDallas40 said:
Both statements are accurate. The individual would probably ignore the firearm possession laws even if he harbored no murderous intent. But once they contemplated murder any firearm possssion violation becomes noise I think.
Click to expand...

So, let's make sure we have MORE gun laws! Because that'll solve the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#7,382
#7,382
Grand Vol said:
How exactly did they do that? Did he pass the background check originally? Was he supposed to "turn in" his firearms?

Oh, did he break the law? Did he ignore what he was supposed to do? Say that ain't so! I mean, I wouldn't think potential criminals would avoid the law and do their part in being upstanding citizens.
Click to expand...

The NRA tweet failed to mention that he also failed a background check and was a convicted felon, their tweet made it sound like he was a citizen who had every right to own a gun which couldn't be further from the truth. If you don't find their tweet deceptive and disingenuous then you are in way too deep. In particular, the NRA used their tweet in defense of a politician calling for sensible gun laws; the implication being that there is no such thing as sensible gun restrictions. In the case of Illinois, legislation was introduced in 2016 requiring that police go to homes to search and seize weapons from someone that had their FOID Card revoked - this legislation did not pass. Isn't this a sensible law? It certainly may have prevented this maniac from killing five innocent people. You and I may be on different ends of the political spectrum but I think we can both agree that we want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them - mental illness, convicted felons, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#7,383
#7,383
TN Ribs said:
In the case of Illinois, legislation was introduced in 2016 requiring that police go to homes to search and seize weapons from someone that had their FOID Card revoked - this legislation did not pass. Isn't this a sensible law?
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, no, this is not sensible at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#7,385
#7,385
TN Ribs said:
The NRA tweet failed to mention that he also failed a background check and was a convicted felon, their tweet made it sound like he was a citizen who had every right to own a gun which couldn't be further from the truth. If you don't find their tweet deceptive and disingenuous then you are in way too deep. In particular, the NRA used their tweet in defense of a politician calling for sensible gun laws; the implication being that there is no such thing as sensible gun restrictions. In the case of Illinois, legislation was introduced in 2016 requiring that police go to homes to search and seize weapons from someone that had their FOID Card revoked - this legislation did not pass. Isn't this a sensible law? It certainly may have prevented this maniac from killing five innocent people. You and I may be on different ends of the political spectrum but I think we can both agree that we want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them - mental illness, convicted felons, etc.
Click to expand...
I'd like you to be the person sent to collect them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ETV and 1972 Grad
#7,386
#7,386
TN Ribs said:
The NRA tweet failed to mention that he also failed a background check and was a convicted felon, their tweet made it sound like he was a citizen who had every right to own a gun which couldn't be further from the truth. If you don't find their tweet deceptive and disingenuous then you are in way too deep. In particular, the NRA used their tweet in defense of a politician calling for sensible gun laws; the implication being that there is no such thing as sensible gun restrictions. In the case of Illinois, legislation was introduced in 2016 requiring that police go to homes to search and seize weapons from someone that had their FOID Card revoked - this legislation did not pass. Isn't this a sensible law? It certainly may have prevented this maniac from killing five innocent people. You and I may be on different ends of the political spectrum but I think we can both agree that we want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them - mental illness, convicted felons, etc.
Click to expand...
No! Hell to the no! The already overtly strict non sensible gun laws in the state of Illinois already failed! The answer isn’t more damn gun laws it’s proper application of their already oppressive gun laws!
 
#7,388
#7,388
Grand Vol said:
Quite frankly, no, this is not sensible at all.
Click to expand...

Got it, so even if you stabbed your ex-girlfriend and failed a background check, you think it's a better idea that the criminal voluntarily turns in his weapon as opposed to the police taking them away. And people wonder why no legislation ever passes in this Country!
 
#7,389
#7,389
TN Ribs said:
The NRA tweet failed to mention that he also failed a background check and was a convicted felon, their tweet made it sound like he was a citizen who had every right to own a gun which couldn't be further from the truth. If you don't find their tweet deceptive and disingenuous then you are in way too deep. In particular, the NRA used their tweet in defense of a politician calling for sensible gun laws; the implication being that there is no such thing as sensible gun restrictions. In the case of Illinois, legislation was introduced in 2016 requiring that police go to homes to search and seize weapons from someone that had their FOID Card revoked - this legislation did not pass. Isn't this a sensible law? It certainly may have prevented this maniac from killing five innocent people. You and I may be on different ends of the political spectrum but I think we can both agree that we want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them - mental illness, convicted felons, etc.
Click to expand...

Paul Harvey moment...

Aurora shooter Gary Martin passed 2 gun background checks despite felony conviction

The disgruntled worker who killed five people in Aurora, Ill., last week after being fired had passed two gun background checks five years ago, despite a criminal record that should have prevented him from possessing a firearm, Fox News has found.

The first check allowed Gary Martin to acquire an Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification card, or FOID card, to possess a weapon. The second allowed Martin to purchase a Smith and Wesson .40-caliber handgun from a local dealer in 2014.

Neither check uncovered Martin’s 1995 felony conviction in Mississippi for aggravated assault.

“I don’t know exactly what happened within the Illinois State Police with respect to these background checks -- whether it was simple human error or if they just didn’t do all the checks -- but these mistakes involving Martin occurred at the same time there was a lot of pressure on the police to keep up with the huge backlog that they had in issuing the FOID cards because of budget cuts,” said John Lott, a Fox News columnist and founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing. We can go round and round all day long over the effectiveness of background checks and the current laws. But even with your example, it's likely Illinois wouldn't have gone after his firearms anyway. Because he passed their background check...

Twice.

Yet, we need MORE laws!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia, Obsessed and NorthDallas40
#7,390
#7,390
TN Ribs said:
Got it, so even if you stabbed your ex-girlfriend and failed a background check, you think it's a better idea that the criminal voluntarily turns in his weapon as opposed to the police taking them away. And people wonder why no legislation ever passes in this Country!
Click to expand...

I don't support the State jumping into anyone's home looking for firearms that may or may not exist. You know what happens?

Dead cops or dead suspects. Or both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ETV, 82_VOL_83 and 0nelilreb
#7,391
#7,391
Illinois failed in doing their damn job. The answer isn’t more laws, the dumbasses can’t properly apply the laws they have already.

Martin purchased the gun that was used in the shooting in 2014, police said. Ziman said Martin purchased the weapon after being issued a firearm owner's identification card, and after passing the initial background check.

Five days after taking possession of the weapon, a Smith & Wesson 40-caliber handgun, Martin tried to obtain a concealed carry permit.

But during the fingerprinting and background process it was discovered that he had a felony conviction for assault in Mississippi, police said. The date of conviction was in 1995. Police said the convictions would not necessarily have shown up on the background check for a gun owner's license.

Because of the conviction, Martin's concealed carry permit was rejected and his license to own a weapon was revoked by Illinois State Police, police said.
Click to expand...

Why the hell wouldn’t it show up on idiot Illinois license check?! It should show up on a basic damn NICS check to buy the gun if it were purchased retail!
 
#7,392
#7,392
Grand Vol said:
I don't support the State jumping into anyone's home looking for firearms that may or may not exist. You know what happens?

Dead cops or dead suspects. Or both.
Click to expand...

That's a valid point but not doing anything isn't the answer either. I mean, we don't let bank robberies continue simply because we don't want cops to get hurt.
 
#7,395
#7,395
Grand Vol said:
Here's the thing. We can go round and round all day long over the effectiveness of background checks and the current laws. But even with your example, it's likely Illinois wouldn't have gone after his firearms anyway. Because he passed their background check...

Twice.

Yet, we need MORE laws!
Click to expand...

For people with a larger agenda (or simply idiots) the failure to properly implement law A should never be a hindrance to passing laws B & C.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick and TN Ribs
#7,398
#7,398
TN Ribs said:
That's a valid point but not doing anything isn't the answer either. I mean, we don't let bank robberies continue simply because we don't want cops to get hurt.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point that the current laws are not being enforced so any new laws are not going to be any more effective.

Illinois already has extremely strict gun laws. The individual went through two background checks and neither one of them picked up on a felony conviction he had years prior. Seems to me the whole idea of universal background checks is becoming the left's immediate answer to everything. Just like banning "high capacity magazines."
 
#7,399
#7,399
Grand Vol said:
If someone comes back with an active warrant or prior violent felony?

Yeah, I surely do.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I think background checks are pretty stupid. As was stated earlier, those intent on murder will murder. A lot of these shootings have happened by people who have passed a background check. The intent of the 4473 form is clear, it’s a national registry.
 
#7,400
#7,400
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Interesting. I think background checks are pretty stupid. As was stated earlier, those intent on murder will murder. A lot of these shootings have happened by people who have passed a background check. The intent of the 4473 form is clear, it’s a national registry.
Click to expand...

If someone has an active warrant and goes into buy a firearm, they (well, should be) a special kind of stupid. You provide name, DOB and SSAN and you're asking to be caught.

Though your comments did make me think of this:

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top