How would any law being proposed have prevented this? That's what I thought.
Enough with the fucktarded memes....At least create your own. You're better than that.
Prohibition would mean no one can have guns. Not what anyone is saying.
Christ, someone mentions gun control, wingtards and NRAfs go nuts afraid that Obama is coming for the guns.
Lol you seem upset. No one is "afraid Obama is coming for the guns". Just pointing out how your memes are fucktarded.
No dolphins were killed so no, I am not upset
Dabone mentioned prohibition. When alcohol was prohibited, it was prohibited for everyone, including those who did not have criminal records. Had that been the case, it would have been called "Alcohol Control" not prohibition
Gun control is not prohibition. Some of you need to learn the difference.
We have very little control for those with criminal records. So now what?
It doesn't control gunshows and internet sales. Criminals will still be able to get guns. People who's drivers licenses because of a DUI - a criminal offense - are suspended will still drive.
And to answer your moronic question, no law would have stopped it. Laws against driving with a suspended license won't prevent a vehicular manslaughter. Laws preventing rape won't prevent rape.
Have you ever bought a gun on-line? Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? When you buy a gun on-line, they ship the gun to a local gun store. The store runs a background check on you and charges you a fee ($25-$50) before handing it over to you. On top of that, the gun shows at Washington State are run by Washington Arms Collectors (WAC). If you are a WAC member, you get a background check before you're granted membership. Otherwise, they do the background checks at the gun shows. Nationally, the rate at which convicted felons get guns at gun shows is somewhere around 2%.
You're parroting what the I-594 people have been spewing. I'm all for background checks, but the big flaw in the system is that domestic abusers and the mentally ill are not always in the NICS.
BTW, I-594 is nothing more than a registration/taxation scheme. It also criminalizes "transfers". So, if I go shooting with a friend and hand him my rifle (under my supervision) without a background check, then we're both felons. Under I-594, we would have to go to a dealer, have them run a background check, pay the fees, wait 10 days, and then go shooting. After we're done shooting, we go back to the dealer, have him do a background check, pay the fees, and wait 10 days before I can get my rifle back. Read the fine print and don't buy into the soundbites on TV & radio or the colorful oversize postcards they send you.
The initiative does nothing to address people with DV & mental issues being entered into the NICS. It doesn't require anyone to get any safety training or range time before purchasing a gun. It's a poorly written law.
Gun owners should be held responsible when a family member or friend uses their gun to commit a crime. You have to throw the book at them. I don't know where this kid got the gun, but if he had easy access at home, then the parents need to pay the consequences through the legal system.
How would any law being proposed have prevented this? That's what I thought.
Enough with the fucktarded memes....At least create your own. You're better than that.
Prohibition would mean no one can have guns. Not what anyone is saying.
Christ, someone mentions gun control, wingtards and NRAfs go nuts afraid that Obama is coming for the guns.
Lol you seem upset. No one is "afraid Obama is coming for the guns". Just pointing out how your memes are fucktarded.
No dolphins were killed so no, I am not upset
Dabone mentioned prohibition. When alcohol was prohibited, it was prohibited for everyone, including those who did not have criminal records. Had that been the case, it would have been called "Alcohol Control" not prohibition
Gun control is not prohibition. Some of you need to learn the difference.
We have very little control for those with criminal records. So now what?
It doesn't control gunshows and internet sales. Criminals will still be able to get guns. People who's drivers licenses because of a DUI - a criminal offense - are suspended will still drive.
And to answer your moronic question, no law would have stopped it. Laws against driving with a suspended license won't prevent a vehicular manslaughter. Laws preventing rape won't prevent rape.
Have you ever bought a gun on-line? Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? When you buy a gun on-line, they ship the gun to a local gun store. The store runs a background check on you and charges you a fee ($25-$50) before handing it over to you. On top of that, the gun shows at Washington State are run by Washington Arms Collectors (WAC). If you are a WAC member, you get a background check before you're granted membership. Otherwise, they do the background checks at the gun shows. Nationally, the rate at which convicted felons get guns at gun shows is somewhere around 2%.
You're parroting what the I-594 people have been spewing. I'm all for background checks, but the big flaw in the system is that domestic abusers and the mentally ill are not always in the NICS.
BTW, I-594 is nothing more than a registration/taxation scheme. It also criminalizes "transfers". So, if I go shooting with a friend and hand him my rifle (under my supervision) without a background check, then we're both felons. Under I-594, we would have to go to a dealer, have them run a background check, pay the fees, wait 10 days, and then go shooting. After we're done shooting, we go back to the dealer, have him do a background check, pay the fees, and wait 10 days before I can get my rifle back. Read the fine print and don't buy into the soundbites on TV & radio or the colorful oversize postcards they send you.
The initiative does nothing to address people with DV & mental issues being entered into the NICS. It doesn't require anyone to get any safety training or range time before purchasing a gun. It's a poorly written law.
Gun owners should be held responsible when a family member or friend uses their gun to commit a crime. You have to throw the book at them. I don't know where this kid got the gun, but if he had easy access at home, then the parents need to pay the consequences through the legal system.
You're parroting NRA rhetoric. Do those talking points come with your membership?
How would any law being proposed have prevented this? That's what I thought.
Enough with the fucktarded memes....At least create your own. You're better than that.
Prohibition would mean no one can have guns. Not what anyone is saying.
Christ, someone mentions gun control, wingtards and NRAfs go nuts afraid that Obama is coming for the guns.
Lol you seem upset. No one is "afraid Obama is coming for the guns". Just pointing out how your memes are fucktarded.
No dolphins were killed so no, I am not upset
Dabone mentioned prohibition. When alcohol was prohibited, it was prohibited for everyone, including those who did not have criminal records. Had that been the case, it would have been called "Alcohol Control" not prohibition
Gun control is not prohibition. Some of you need to learn the difference.
We have very little control for those with criminal records. So now what?
It doesn't control gunshows and internet sales. Criminals will still be able to get guns. People who's drivers licenses because of a DUI - a criminal offense - are suspended will still drive.
And to answer your moronic question, no law would have stopped it. Laws against driving with a suspended license won't prevent a vehicular manslaughter. Laws preventing rape won't prevent rape.
Have you ever bought a gun on-line? Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? When you buy a gun on-line, they ship the gun to a local gun store. The store runs a background check on you and charges you a fee ($25-$50) before handing it over to you. On top of that, the gun shows at Washington State are run by Washington Arms Collectors (WAC). If you are a WAC member, you get a background check before you're granted membership. Otherwise, they do the background checks at the gun shows. Nationally, the rate at which convicted felons get guns at gun shows is somewhere around 2%.
You're parroting what the I-594 people have been spewing. I'm all for background checks, but the big flaw in the system is that domestic abusers and the mentally ill are not always in the NICS.
BTW, I-594 is nothing more than a registration/taxation scheme. It also criminalizes "transfers". So, if I go shooting with a friend and hand him my rifle (under my supervision) without a background check, then we're both felons. Under I-594, we would have to go to a dealer, have them run a background check, pay the fees, wait 10 days, and then go shooting. After we're done shooting, we go back to the dealer, have him do a background check, pay the fees, and wait 10 days before I can get my rifle back. Read the fine print and don't buy into the soundbites on TV & radio or the colorful oversize postcards they send you.
The initiative does nothing to address people with DV & mental issues being entered into the NICS. It doesn't require anyone to get any safety training or range time before purchasing a gun. It's a poorly written law.
Gun owners should be held responsible when a family member or friend uses their gun to commit a crime. You have to throw the book at them. I don't know where this kid got the gun, but if he had easy access at home, then the parents need to pay the consequences through the legal system.
You're parroting NRA rhetoric. Do those talking points come with your membership?
How would any law being proposed have prevented this? That's what I thought.
Enough with the fucktarded memes....At least create your own. You're better than that.
Prohibition would mean no one can have guns. Not what anyone is saying.
Christ, someone mentions gun control, wingtards and NRAfs go nuts afraid that Obama is coming for the guns.
Lol you seem upset. No one is "afraid Obama is coming for the guns". Just pointing out how your memes are fucktarded.
No dolphins were killed so no, I am not upset
Dabone mentioned prohibition. When alcohol was prohibited, it was prohibited for everyone, including those who did not have criminal records. Had that been the case, it would have been called "Alcohol Control" not prohibition
Gun control is not prohibition. Some of you need to learn the difference.
We have very little control for those with criminal records. So now what?
It doesn't control gunshows and internet sales. Criminals will still be able to get guns. People who's drivers licenses because of a DUI - a criminal offense - are suspended will still drive.
And to answer your moronic question, no law would have stopped it. Laws against driving with a suspended license won't prevent a vehicular manslaughter. Laws preventing rape won't prevent rape.
Thanks for answering. And that's what I thought.
So control gun shows and Internet sales. After that will the anti 2nd amendment people the shut the fuck up? That's also what I thought.
So what are you blathering on about?
People aren't against having a well-regulated militia. HTH
How would any law being proposed have prevented this? That's what I thought.
Enough with the fucktarded memes....At least create your own. You're better than that.
Prohibition would mean no one can have guns. Not what anyone is saying.
Christ, someone mentions gun control, wingtards and NRAfs go nuts afraid that Obama is coming for the guns.
Lol you seem upset. No one is "afraid Obama is coming for the guns". Just pointing out how your memes are fucktarded.
No dolphins were killed so no, I am not upset
Dabone mentioned prohibition. When alcohol was prohibited, it was prohibited for everyone, including those who did not have criminal records. Had that been the case, it would have been called "Alcohol Control" not prohibition
Gun control is not prohibition. Some of you need to learn the difference.
We have very little control for those with criminal records. So now what?
It doesn't control gunshows and internet sales. Criminals will still be able to get guns. People who's drivers licenses because of a DUI - a criminal offense - are suspended will still drive.
And to answer your moronic question, no law would have stopped it. Laws against driving with a suspended license won't prevent a vehicular manslaughter. Laws preventing rape won't prevent rape.
Thanks for answering. And that's what I thought.
So control gun shows and Internet sales. After that will the anti 2nd amendment people the shut the fuck up? That's also what I thought.
So what are you blathering on about?
People aren't against having a well-regulated militia. HTH
How would any law being proposed have prevented this? That's what I thought.
Enough with the fucktarded memes....At least create your own. You're better than that.
Prohibition would mean no one can have guns. Not what anyone is saying.
Christ, someone mentions gun control, wingtards and NRAfs go nuts afraid that Obama is coming for the guns.
Lol you seem upset. No one is "afraid Obama is coming for the guns". Just pointing out how your memes are fucktarded.
No dolphins were killed so no, I am not upset
Dabone mentioned prohibition. When alcohol was prohibited, it was prohibited for everyone, including those who did not have criminal records. Had that been the case, it would have been called "Alcohol Control" not prohibition
Gun control is not prohibition. Some of you need to learn the difference.
We have very little control for those with criminal records. So now what?
It doesn't control gunshows and internet sales. Criminals will still be able to get guns. People who's drivers licenses because of a DUI - a criminal offense - are suspended will still drive.
And to answer your moronic question, no law would have stopped it. Laws against driving with a suspended license won't prevent a vehicular manslaughter. Laws preventing rape won't prevent rape.
Thanks for answering. And that's what I thought.
So control gun shows and Internet sales. After that will the anti 2nd amendment people the shut the fuck up? That's also what I thought.
So what are you blathering on about?
People aren't against having a well-regulated militia. HTH
How would any law being proposed have prevented this? That's what I thought.
Enough with the fucktarded memes....At least create your own. You're better than that.
Prohibition would mean no one can have guns. Not what anyone is saying.
Christ, someone mentions gun control, wingtards and NRAfs go nuts afraid that Obama is coming for the guns.
Lol you seem upset. No one is "afraid Obama is coming for the guns". Just pointing out how your memes are fucktarded.
No dolphins were killed so no, I am not upset
Dabone mentioned prohibition. When alcohol was prohibited, it was prohibited for everyone, including those who did not have criminal records. Had that been the case, it would have been called "Alcohol Control" not prohibition
Gun control is not prohibition. Some of you need to learn the difference.
We have very little control for those with criminal records. So now what?
It doesn't control gunshows and internet sales. Criminals will still be able to get guns. People who's drivers licenses because of a DUI - a criminal offense - are suspended will still drive.
And to answer your moronic question, no law would have stopped it. Laws against driving with a suspended license won't prevent a vehicular manslaughter. Laws preventing rape won't prevent rape.
Have you ever bought a gun on-line? Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? When you buy a gun on-line, they ship the gun to a local gun store. The store runs a background check on you and charges you a fee ($25-$50) before handing it over to you. On top of that, the gun shows at Washington State are run by Washington Arms Collectors (WAC). If you are a WAC member, you get a background check before you're granted membership. Otherwise, they do the background checks at the gun shows. Nationally, the rate at which convicted felons get guns at gun shows is somewhere around 2%.
You're parroting what the I-594 people have been spewing. I'm all for background checks, but the big flaw in the system is that domestic abusers and the mentally ill are not always in the NICS.
BTW, I-594 is nothing more than a registration/taxation scheme. It also criminalizes "transfers". So, if I go shooting with a friend and hand him my rifle (under my supervision) without a background check, then we're both felons. Under I-594, we would have to go to a dealer, have them run a background check, pay the fees, wait 10 days, and then go shooting. After we're done shooting, we go back to the dealer, have him do a background check, pay the fees, and wait 10 days before I can get my rifle back. Read the fine print and don't buy into the soundbites on TV & radio or the colorful oversize postcards they send you.
The initiative does nothing to address people with DV & mental issues being entered into the NICS. It doesn't require anyone to get any safety training or range time before purchasing a gun. It's a poorly written law.
Gun owners should be held responsible when a family member or friend uses their gun to commit a crime. You have to throw the book at them. I don't know where this kid got the gun, but if he had easy access at home, then the parents need to pay the consequences through the legal system.
You're parroting NRA rhetoric. Do those talking points come with your membership?
Lol this post proves you don't get it and never will.
Comments
When you buy a gun on-line, they ship the gun to a local gun store. The store runs a background check on you and charges you a fee ($25-$50) before handing it over to you. On top of that, the gun shows at Washington State are run by Washington Arms Collectors (WAC). If you are a WAC member, you get a background check before you're granted membership. Otherwise, they do the background checks at the gun shows. Nationally, the rate at which convicted felons get guns at gun shows is somewhere around 2%.
You're parroting what the I-594 people have been spewing. I'm all for background checks, but the big flaw in the system is that domestic abusers and the mentally ill are not always in the NICS.
BTW, I-594 is nothing more than a registration/taxation scheme. It also criminalizes "transfers". So, if I go shooting with a friend and hand him my rifle (under my supervision) without a background check, then we're both felons. Under I-594, we would have to go to a dealer, have them run a background check, pay the fees, wait 10 days, and then go shooting. After we're done shooting, we go back to the dealer, have him do a background check, pay the fees, and wait 10 days before I can get my rifle back. Read the fine print and don't buy into the soundbites on TV & radio or the colorful oversize postcards they send you.
The initiative does nothing to address people with DV & mental issues being entered into the NICS. It doesn't require anyone to get any safety training or range time before purchasing a gun. It's a poorly written law.
Gun owners should be held responsible when a family member or friend uses their gun to commit a crime. You have to throw the book at them. I don't know where this kid got the gun, but if he had easy access at home, then the parents need to pay the consequences through the legal system.
Jugs.
Brb "jacking off to guns"
#trailofwin