Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Unwelcome Wagon was out in force tonight for Bloomberg in Arlington.

More than 150 Second Amendment supporters came out to his campaign HQ in Pentagon City to tell him his Napoleon Complex won't fly here.

There were about 50 people who turned out to the event to hear various empty suits speak, including intellectual welterweight Muriel Bowser.

We have no idea if Bloomberg himself spoke, as the few dozen people in the crowd inside were all of average height, and effectively shielded Manlet-Mike from view.

But whether he addressed his soft minded followers or not is irrelevant, he was certainly aware of the hornets nest just outside his front door. So much so that he fled out through a back door, in disgrace.

Recap from 2A trash. Klassy.

Maybe y'all shoulda showed up to help out your buddy Manlet-Mike. Then he wouldn't have been so outnumbered that he had to sneak out the backdoor like a small town mayor leaving a whorehouse, lolz!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Unwelcome Wagon was out in force tonight for Bloomberg in Arlington.

More than 150 Second Amendment supporters came out to his campaign HQ in Pentagon City to tell him his Napoleon Complex won't fly here.

There were about 50 people who turned out to the event to hear various empty suits speak, including intellectual welterweight Muriel Bowser.

We have no idea if Bloomberg himself spoke, as the few dozen people in the crowd inside were all of average height, and effectively shielded Manlet-Mike from view.

But whether he addressed his soft minded followers or not is irrelevant, he was certainly aware of the hornets nest just outside his front door. So much so that he fled out through a back door, in disgrace.

Recap from 2A trash. Klassy.

Awwwww, you mad?

Anonymous wrote:The Unwelcome Wagon was out in force tonight for Bloomberg in Arlington.

More than 150 Second Amendment supporters came out to his campaign HQ in Pentagon City to tell him his Napoleon Complex won't fly here.

There were about 50 people who turned out to the event to hear various empty suits speak, including intellectual welterweight Muriel Bowser.

We have no idea if Bloomberg himself spoke, as the few dozen people in the crowd inside were all of average height, and effectively shielded Manlet-Mike from view.

But whether he addressed his soft minded followers or not is irrelevant, he was certainly aware of the hornets nest just outside his front door. So much so that he fled out through a back door, in disgrace.

Recap from 2A trash. Klassy.

The Unwelcome Wagon was out in force tonight for Bloomberg in Arlington.

More than 150 Second Amendment supporters came out to his campaign HQ in Pentagon City to tell him his Napoleon Complex won't fly here.

There were about 50 people who turned out to the event to hear various empty suits speak, including intellectual welterweight Muriel Bowser.

We have no idea if Bloomberg himself spoke, as the few dozen people in the crowd inside were all of average height, and effectively shielded Manlet-Mike from view.

But whether he addressed his soft minded followers or not is irrelevant, he was certainly aware of the hornets nest just outside his front door. So much so that he fled out through a back door, in disgrace.

Anonymous wrote:^^^

Pretty obvious troll post.

You haven't read the legislation.

How so, HB961 is sure to pass. Secondly an "assualt firearm" will now be defined as "Assault firearm" includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify,
or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm. "

That would include nearly any part of a rifle.

Likewise with respect to magazines "For purposes of this section, "large-capacity firearm magazine" means any firearm magazine, belt,
460 drum, feed strip, or similar device that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to
461 accept, more than 12 rounds of ammunition. "
465 B. It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport
466 any large-capacity firearms magazine. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony

Furthermore an assault firearm is now defined as:
A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 12 rounds;

2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) a grenade launcher; (v) a flare launcher, (vi) a silencer; (vii) a flash
suppressor; (viii) a muzzle brake; (ix) a muzzle compensator; (x) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a muzzle brake, or (d) a muzzle compensator; or (xi) any
characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (x).

Furthermore all sorts of common pistols will now be banned.

A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an
409 explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of
410 the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a second handgrip or a protruding
411 grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iii) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to
412 the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (iv) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
413 encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without
414 being burned; (v) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vi) a
415 threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a barrel extender, or (d)
416 a forward handgrip; or (vii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vi).

Most modern hanguns have the ability to have extended magazines that extend below the handgrip, heck most come with threaded barrells too.

Furthmer HB 264 specifically prohibits NRA instructors:

HB264 removes the NRA certified instructors as valid instructors:

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+HB264H1

Check section 3 of that bill, it specifically prohibts NRA instructors.

Both bills were read out to the house today.

^^^

Pretty obvious troll post.

I guess it was ineffective. The legislature will be taking up a vote shortly that essentially bans all new semi autos, parts for semi autos, and another bill refuses to allow NRA certified instructors, who make up the bulk to gun safety trainers train new concealed carry permit holders.

The last point is just nuts. The NRA spends most of their money on safety and training, not lobbying

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I 3-D printed a Glock-style handgun today.

No background check.
No waiting period.
No registration.
No one knows I have it.

Libs and progs are never going to get this genie back in the bottle. And the more you try, the more people like me you create in the process.

I didn't give the slightest F about guns 5 years ago. Now I'm building in my basement. Why? Because elected politicians keep saying they're going to take them away from everyone.

Not. Gonna. Happen. No matter how much you want it to.

Nice! Just keep refining the process until you feel you've mastered it. And make sure to actually shoot these guns to confirm proper function. I have heard several horror stories with 3D printed guns and 80% Lowers/Glocks being sold by guys who didn't know what they were doing.

I've done about a dozen gen 3 polymers prior to 3D printing my first one. The CAD file is basically a .5mm layer scan of a polymer receiver, so it's basically a clone. This is my sixth print. Not counting the test-mules, I have 15 assembled and 100% functioning gen 3 pistols. None are for sale, they're for caching or for use when sterility is a need. Everyone in my squad has between a half a dozen and two dozen each. We've been building them like crazy since the version 2 kits with the rear metal rails came out.

Anonymous wrote:I 3-D printed a Glock-style handgun today.

No background check.
No waiting period.
No registration.
No one knows I have it.

Libs and progs are never going to get this genie back in the bottle. And the more you try, the more people like me you create in the process.

I didn't give the slightest F about guns 5 years ago. Now I'm building in my basement. Why? Because elected politicians keep saying they're going to take them away from everyone.

Not. Gonna. Happen. No matter how much you want it to.

Nice! Just keep refining the process until you feel you've mastered it. And make sure to actually shoot these guns to confirm proper function. I have heard several horror stories with 3D printed guns and 80% Lowers/Glocks being sold by guys who didn't know what they were doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as someone can explain the procedure of how a person is put on a terror watchlist, is notified of their being on that list, and can explain how they petition how to be removed from it, we can discuss it.


But you can't. Because it's a secret list.

You're not told if you're on it. You're not told why you're on it. And there's no means to get off of it.

So when we have some openness about the watch list, then we can talk about it. Until then, nonstarter.



As for online sales of guns: 100% of guns sold through online auction or sales sites have a federal background check associated with them. Every. Single. One.


Because federal law requires the gun be shipped to a FFL, not directly to the buyer. The FFL logs it into their bound book, and transfers it to the buyer after the federal paperwork and NICS check is done, in addition to any state paperwork, if there is any.

Again, to reiterate: EVERY GUN SOLD ONLINE THROUGH A GUN AUCTION/SALE OR TRADING WEBSITE GOES THROUGH A DEALER AND HAS A BACKGROUND CHECK ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

A GUN CANNOT BE PURCHASED ONLINE AND SENT DIRECTLY TO THE BUYER. PERIOD. FULL-STOP.




Now, can we please stop with the repetitive, childish, moronic, infantile "but what about guns sold online?" questions????

You have your answer. Yet again. Enough already.

Ok. And what about the online classified? Like PP posted - VAGunTrader.com? Or armslist.com as I mentioned earlier?

Felons can buy guns via online classified with no background check.

Felons can also buy them at yard sales. Or flea markets. Or from friends. Or from family. Or from straw buyers. Or from other criminals. Or steal them. Or even build them from scratch if need be.

And it's already illegal for a felon to do all those things.


So what's your point, exactly?

That universal background checks will give felons fewer options to buy guns.

Like prescription requirements give junkies fewer options to get drugs.

Exactly. It's getting increasingly difficult for junkies to obtain opiods because of tighter controls around prescriptions.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/guidelines_at-a-glance-a.pdf

So..... what you're saying then.... is when addicts can't obtain something legally, they just give up and stop looking.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!


No. When addicts can't find something legally, they simply obtain it illegally.

But felons don't do that with guns. Nah... totally different scenario, right?


Why don't you just admit that the REAL reason you want background checks on private sales is because you want the information on who owns what in a giant database, so when the time comes to confiscate them all, you know who has what.

Seriously, just admit that. We already know it anyway. But we'd actually have a modicum of respect for you if you had the courage to admit that's the plan.

But you never do. You go on thinking we'll never figure it out until it's too late.

Yeah, that went out with the Sullivan Law.

No, I said it makes it “increasingly difficult” - just as a universal background checks would make it increasingly difficult for felons to buy guns.

Are you a felon? Why do you want to give them easy ways to buy guns?

And your whole “REAL reason” tirade makes you sound like a paranoid nut job projecting your inner fears on me.

Ahhhhhhh yes, the old "paranoid" tripe. That's what you folks throw out when you know you're caught.

It's not paranoia. It's reality. Search: "Sullivan Law NYC". Search "CA assault weapon registry"

I know you won't, so I'll Cliff Note it for you anyway:

In both cases, registration lists were later used to confiscate guns from owners after a change in the law, despite assurances when the registration laws were passed that no such thing would ever occur. In CA's case, it didn't even take 5 years to go from registration to confiscation.

And background checks on private sales do just that - they create an up-to-date registry of who owns what, because each gun is logged in on the bound books of the FFL doing the transfer. The dealers essentially are being used to build the gun registry that the govt is legally prohibited from building itself. Then the BATFE simply collects the books from the dealers periodically, as they do now already, and builds a registry.


You're factually underequipped to engage in this argument.


Now, call me another name or insult me. Because that's all you've got.

That’s funny after you’ve tried to insult me on multiple posts. And then when I respond with facts you go silent.

Do you think we should require background checks for any gun sale?

Nope. I don't insult anyone. I don't need to. I'm better than that. I win arguments on this topic because I'm better informed than you. Insults and name calling are the last ditch measure of people who can't win an argument.

I'm ok with background checks on sales of new guns from licensed dealers.

And as others have suggested, open NICS to private sellers so they can run the same background check themselves just like a dealer would. But with no component that establishes a record of who owns what gun.

FWIW, I think everyone who shops at Home Depot or Lowes or other hardware stores should have background checks, too. Because everything you need to literally build a working gun from scratch is in just about every hardware store in the country.

Do you support background checks every time you go to Home Depot?

^^^ does not support universal background checks ^^^

You have a reading comprehension problem.

No, that PP does not support universal background checks for fear of a national gun registry.

He supports universal background checks, not an adhoc national registry.

Not a required universal background check - just having the NICS available if the sellers want to use.

That's a mistake. If something isn't mandatory, people will just ignore it. NICS doesn't need to retain these transactions, but as a seller you should retain proof that said individual was clean (however you keep records).

Anonymous wrote:I 3-D printed a Glock-style handgun today.

No background check.
No waiting period.
No registration.
No one knows I have it.

Libs and progs are never going to get this genie back in the bottle. And the more you try, the more people like me you create in the process.

I didn't give the slightest F about guns 5 years ago. Now I'm building in my basement. Why? Because elected politicians keep saying they're going to take them away from everyone.

Not. Gonna. Happen. No matter how much you want it to.

But you support universal background checks though, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as someone can explain the procedure of how a person is put on a terror watchlist, is notified of their being on that list, and can explain how they petition how to be removed from it, we can discuss it.


But you can't. Because it's a secret list.

You're not told if you're on it. You're not told why you're on it. And there's no means to get off of it.

So when we have some openness about the watch list, then we can talk about it. Until then, nonstarter.



As for online sales of guns: 100% of guns sold through online auction or sales sites have a federal background check associated with them. Every. Single. One.


Because federal law requires the gun be shipped to a FFL, not directly to the buyer. The FFL logs it into their bound book, and transfers it to the buyer after the federal paperwork and NICS check is done, in addition to any state paperwork, if there is any.

Again, to reiterate: EVERY GUN SOLD ONLINE THROUGH A GUN AUCTION/SALE OR TRADING WEBSITE GOES THROUGH A DEALER AND HAS A BACKGROUND CHECK ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

A GUN CANNOT BE PURCHASED ONLINE AND SENT DIRECTLY TO THE BUYER. PERIOD. FULL-STOP.




Now, can we please stop with the repetitive, childish, moronic, infantile "but what about guns sold online?" questions????

You have your answer. Yet again. Enough already.

Ok. And what about the online classified? Like PP posted - VAGunTrader.com? Or armslist.com as I mentioned earlier?

Felons can buy guns via online classified with no background check.

Felons can also buy them at yard sales. Or flea markets. Or from friends. Or from family. Or from straw buyers. Or from other criminals. Or steal them. Or even build them from scratch if need be.

And it's already illegal for a felon to do all those things.


So what's your point, exactly?

That universal background checks will give felons fewer options to buy guns.

Like prescription requirements give junkies fewer options to get drugs.

Exactly. It's getting increasingly difficult for junkies to obtain opiods because of tighter controls around prescriptions.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/guidelines_at-a-glance-a.pdf

So..... what you're saying then.... is when addicts can't obtain something legally, they just give up and stop looking.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!


No. When addicts can't find something legally, they simply obtain it illegally.

But felons don't do that with guns. Nah... totally different scenario, right?


Why don't you just admit that the REAL reason you want background checks on private sales is because you want the information on who owns what in a giant database, so when the time comes to confiscate them all, you know who has what.

Seriously, just admit that. We already know it anyway. But we'd actually have a modicum of respect for you if you had the courage to admit that's the plan.

But you never do. You go on thinking we'll never figure it out until it's too late.

Yeah, that went out with the Sullivan Law.

No, I said it makes it “increasingly difficult” - just as a universal background checks would make it increasingly difficult for felons to buy guns.

Are you a felon? Why do you want to give them easy ways to buy guns?

And your whole “REAL reason” tirade makes you sound like a paranoid nut job projecting your inner fears on me.

Ahhhhhhh yes, the old "paranoid" tripe. That's what you folks throw out when you know you're caught.

It's not paranoia. It's reality. Search: "Sullivan Law NYC". Search "CA assault weapon registry"

I know you won't, so I'll Cliff Note it for you anyway:

In both cases, registration lists were later used to confiscate guns from owners after a change in the law, despite assurances when the registration laws were passed that no such thing would ever occur. In CA's case, it didn't even take 5 years to go from registration to confiscation.

And background checks on private sales do just that - they create an up-to-date registry of who owns what, because each gun is logged in on the bound books of the FFL doing the transfer. The dealers essentially are being used to build the gun registry that the govt is legally prohibited from building itself. Then the BATFE simply collects the books from the dealers periodically, as they do now already, and builds a registry.


You're factually underequipped to engage in this argument.


Now, call me another name or insult me. Because that's all you've got.

That’s funny after you’ve tried to insult me on multiple posts. And then when I respond with facts you go silent.

Do you think we should require background checks for any gun sale?

Nope. I don't insult anyone. I don't need to. I'm better than that. I win arguments on this topic because I'm better informed than you. Insults and name calling are the last ditch measure of people who can't win an argument.

I'm ok with background checks on sales of new guns from licensed dealers.

And as others have suggested, open NICS to private sellers so they can run the same background check themselves just like a dealer would. But with no component that establishes a record of who owns what gun.

FWIW, I think everyone who shops at Home Depot or Lowes or other hardware stores should have background checks, too. Because everything you need to literally build a working gun from scratch is in just about every hardware store in the country.

Do you support background checks every time you go to Home Depot?

^^^ does not support universal background checks ^^^

You have a reading comprehension problem.

No, that PP does not support universal background checks for fear of a national gun registry.

He supports universal background checks, not an adhoc national registry.

Not a required universal background check - just having the NICS available if the sellers want to use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as someone can explain the procedure of how a person is put on a terror watchlist, is notified of their being on that list, and can explain how they petition how to be removed from it, we can discuss it.


But you can't. Because it's a secret list.

You're not told if you're on it. You're not told why you're on it. And there's no means to get off of it.

So when we have some openness about the watch list, then we can talk about it. Until then, nonstarter.



As for online sales of guns: 100% of guns sold through online auction or sales sites have a federal background check associated with them. Every. Single. One.


Because federal law requires the gun be shipped to a FFL, not directly to the buyer. The FFL logs it into their bound book, and transfers it to the buyer after the federal paperwork and NICS check is done, in addition to any state paperwork, if there is any.

Again, to reiterate: EVERY GUN SOLD ONLINE THROUGH A GUN AUCTION/SALE OR TRADING WEBSITE GOES THROUGH A DEALER AND HAS A BACKGROUND CHECK ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

A GUN CANNOT BE PURCHASED ONLINE AND SENT DIRECTLY TO THE BUYER. PERIOD. FULL-STOP.




Now, can we please stop with the repetitive, childish, moronic, infantile "but what about guns sold online?" questions????

You have your answer. Yet again. Enough already.

Ok. And what about the online classified? Like PP posted - VAGunTrader.com? Or armslist.com as I mentioned earlier?

Felons can buy guns via online classified with no background check.

Felons can also buy them at yard sales. Or flea markets. Or from friends. Or from family. Or from straw buyers. Or from other criminals. Or steal them. Or even build them from scratch if need be.

And it's already illegal for a felon to do all those things.


So what's your point, exactly?

That universal background checks will give felons fewer options to buy guns.

Like prescription requirements give junkies fewer options to get drugs.

Exactly. It's getting increasingly difficult for junkies to obtain opiods because of tighter controls around prescriptions.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/guidelines_at-a-glance-a.pdf

So..... what you're saying then.... is when addicts can't obtain something legally, they just give up and stop looking.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!


No. When addicts can't find something legally, they simply obtain it illegally.

But felons don't do that with guns. Nah... totally different scenario, right?


Why don't you just admit that the REAL reason you want background checks on private sales is because you want the information on who owns what in a giant database, so when the time comes to confiscate them all, you know who has what.

Seriously, just admit that. We already know it anyway. But we'd actually have a modicum of respect for you if you had the courage to admit that's the plan.

But you never do. You go on thinking we'll never figure it out until it's too late.

Yeah, that went out with the Sullivan Law.

No, I said it makes it “increasingly difficult” - just as a universal background checks would make it increasingly difficult for felons to buy guns.

Are you a felon? Why do you want to give them easy ways to buy guns?

And your whole “REAL reason” tirade makes you sound like a paranoid nut job projecting your inner fears on me.

Ahhhhhhh yes, the old "paranoid" tripe. That's what you folks throw out when you know you're caught.

It's not paranoia. It's reality. Search: "Sullivan Law NYC". Search "CA assault weapon registry"

I know you won't, so I'll Cliff Note it for you anyway:

In both cases, registration lists were later used to confiscate guns from owners after a change in the law, despite assurances when the registration laws were passed that no such thing would ever occur. In CA's case, it didn't even take 5 years to go from registration to confiscation.

And background checks on private sales do just that - they create an up-to-date registry of who owns what, because each gun is logged in on the bound books of the FFL doing the transfer. The dealers essentially are being used to build the gun registry that the govt is legally prohibited from building itself. Then the BATFE simply collects the books from the dealers periodically, as they do now already, and builds a registry.


You're factually underequipped to engage in this argument.


Now, call me another name or insult me. Because that's all you've got.

That’s funny after you’ve tried to insult me on multiple posts. And then when I respond with facts you go silent.

Do you think we should require background checks for any gun sale?

Nope. I don't insult anyone. I don't need to. I'm better than that. I win arguments on this topic because I'm better informed than you. Insults and name calling are the last ditch measure of people who can't win an argument.

I'm ok with background checks on sales of new guns from licensed dealers.

And as others have suggested, open NICS to private sellers so they can run the same background check themselves just like a dealer would. But with no component that establishes a record of who owns what gun.

FWIW, I think everyone who shops at Home Depot or Lowes or other hardware stores should have background checks, too. Because everything you need to literally build a working gun from scratch is in just about every hardware store in the country.

Do you support background checks every time you go to Home Depot?

^^^ does not support universal background checks ^^^

You have a reading comprehension problem.

No, that PP does not support universal background checks for fear of a national gun registry.

He supports universal background checks, not an adhoc national registry.

I 3-D printed a Glock-style handgun today.

No background check.
No waiting period.
No registration.
No one knows I have it.

Libs and progs are never going to get this genie back in the bottle. And the more you try, the more people like me you create in the process.

I didn't give the slightest F about guns 5 years ago. Now I'm building in my basement. Why? Because elected politicians keep saying they're going to take them away from everyone.

Not. Gonna. Happen. No matter how much you want it to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as someone can explain the procedure of how a person is put on a terror watchlist, is notified of their being on that list, and can explain how they petition how to be removed from it, we can discuss it.


But you can't. Because it's a secret list.

You're not told if you're on it. You're not told why you're on it. And there's no means to get off of it.

So when we have some openness about the watch list, then we can talk about it. Until then, nonstarter.



As for online sales of guns: 100% of guns sold through online auction or sales sites have a federal background check associated with them. Every. Single. One.


Because federal law requires the gun be shipped to a FFL, not directly to the buyer. The FFL logs it into their bound book, and transfers it to the buyer after the federal paperwork and NICS check is done, in addition to any state paperwork, if there is any.

Again, to reiterate: EVERY GUN SOLD ONLINE THROUGH A GUN AUCTION/SALE OR TRADING WEBSITE GOES THROUGH A DEALER AND HAS A BACKGROUND CHECK ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

A GUN CANNOT BE PURCHASED ONLINE AND SENT DIRECTLY TO THE BUYER. PERIOD. FULL-STOP.




Now, can we please stop with the repetitive, childish, moronic, infantile "but what about guns sold online?" questions????

You have your answer. Yet again. Enough already.

Ok. And what about the online classified? Like PP posted - VAGunTrader.com? Or armslist.com as I mentioned earlier?

Felons can buy guns via online classified with no background check.

Felons can also buy them at yard sales. Or flea markets. Or from friends. Or from family. Or from straw buyers. Or from other criminals. Or steal them. Or even build them from scratch if need be.

And it's already illegal for a felon to do all those things.


So what's your point, exactly?

That universal background checks will give felons fewer options to buy guns.

Like prescription requirements give junkies fewer options to get drugs.

Exactly. It's getting increasingly difficult for junkies to obtain opiods because of tighter controls around prescriptions.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/guidelines_at-a-glance-a.pdf

So..... what you're saying then.... is when addicts can't obtain something legally, they just give up and stop looking.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!


No. When addicts can't find something legally, they simply obtain it illegally.

But felons don't do that with guns. Nah... totally different scenario, right?


Why don't you just admit that the REAL reason you want background checks on private sales is because you want the information on who owns what in a giant database, so when the time comes to confiscate them all, you know who has what.

Seriously, just admit that. We already know it anyway. But we'd actually have a modicum of respect for you if you had the courage to admit that's the plan.

But you never do. You go on thinking we'll never figure it out until it's too late.

Yeah, that went out with the Sullivan Law.

No, I said it makes it “increasingly difficult” - just as a universal background checks would make it increasingly difficult for felons to buy guns.

Are you a felon? Why do you want to give them easy ways to buy guns?

And your whole “REAL reason” tirade makes you sound like a paranoid nut job projecting your inner fears on me.

Ahhhhhhh yes, the old "paranoid" tripe. That's what you folks throw out when you know you're caught.

It's not paranoia. It's reality. Search: "Sullivan Law NYC". Search "CA assault weapon registry"

I know you won't, so I'll Cliff Note it for you anyway:

In both cases, registration lists were later used to confiscate guns from owners after a change in the law, despite assurances when the registration laws were passed that no such thing would ever occur. In CA's case, it didn't even take 5 years to go from registration to confiscation.

And background checks on private sales do just that - they create an up-to-date registry of who owns what, because each gun is logged in on the bound books of the FFL doing the transfer. The dealers essentially are being used to build the gun registry that the govt is legally prohibited from building itself. Then the BATFE simply collects the books from the dealers periodically, as they do now already, and builds a registry.


You're factually underequipped to engage in this argument.


Now, call me another name or insult me. Because that's all you've got.

That’s funny after you’ve tried to insult me on multiple posts. And then when I respond with facts you go silent.

Do you think we should require background checks for any gun sale?

Nope. I don't insult anyone. I don't need to. I'm better than that. I win arguments on this topic because I'm better informed than you. Insults and name calling are the last ditch measure of people who can't win an argument.

I'm ok with background checks on sales of new guns from licensed dealers.

And as others have suggested, open NICS to private sellers so they can run the same background check themselves just like a dealer would. But with no component that establishes a record of who owns what gun.

FWIW, I think everyone who shops at Home Depot or Lowes or other hardware stores should have background checks, too. Because everything you need to literally build a working gun from scratch is in just about every hardware store in the country.

Do you support background checks every time you go to Home Depot?

^^^ does not support universal background checks ^^^

You have a reading comprehension problem.

No, that PP does not support universal background checks for fear of a national gun registry.