Defend your right to own a car.

[bu villain]

Democrats think its ok to dry up the gun market to reduce availability of guns to criminals. While i do not want guns in the hands of criminals, i dont want my access limited in any way at all to accomplish this task. But you're ok with just attacking the gun market as a whole to weaken criminal supply.

This basically sums up a major part of the debate and what blank was getting at with his single gun manufacturer scenario.

Question: can you limit the supply of guns to criminals without limiting the supply of guns to citizens?
Are you willing to limit the supply of guns to citizens to limit the supply of guns to criminals?
Do you think background checks will have any effect on the transfer of guns between criminals or is it simply part of limiting access overall?
How many years do you estimate it would take for guns to be rare in america?

Many people are fine with reducing the supply of guns to citizens in order to reduce the supply to criminals. The definition of rare is hard to define but I think many people would argue that as long as they became rarer over any time period, that would be a good thing. I'm not necessarily advocating that position but that is what I understand the logic to be.

Feinstein knows that she will not be able to restrict handgun ownership, knife ownership, or baseball bat ownership, and thus is not making public safety her top concern, as she is targeting the weapons that she feels that she can get a possible ban on, instead of focusing efforts and tax dollars on the appropriate concerns. This is not how we should be using Congressional efforts.

If public safety was really a top concern, assault style rifles would not be the focus. Instead, Congress would be focusing it's efforts to prevent individuals from utilizing any tool/weapon by addressing the source of the issue - individual people...If you want to have a lasting impact, you have to address the right place - the minds of people, not the tools that they use.

I totally agree with what you just stated David. Certain gun control efforts are not realistically possible so they will go after what they can, hence the focus on assault rifles. Neither side seems to be proposing much about how to address the people factor but quite simply, it's a very complicated and difficult issue to address. So instead, we are stuck with this focus on guns themselves which is secondary to the root issue. What would you suggest we do to address the people side of the issue?

[David88vert]

This basically sums up a major part of the debate and what blank was getting at with his single gun manufacturer scenario.

Many people are fine with reducing the supply of guns to citizens in order to reduce the supply to criminals. The definition of rare is hard to define but I think many people would argue that as long as they became rarer over any time period, that would be a good thing. I'm not necessarily advocating that position but that is what I understand the logic to be.

It is an illogical concept to conclude that guns in the hands of criminals would dry up because you removed a few select rifles from legal citizens. History does not support that notion. It didn't even start to happen during the last 10 year ban, nor did handguns disappear in DC under their handgun ban. Criminals disregard the law. There is only irrational hope, not logic, to think that it would work. Countries that do have total firearms bans still have criminals with guns.

I totally agree with what you just stated David. Certain gun control efforts are not realistically possible so they will go after what they can, hence the focus on assault rifles. Neither side seems to be proposing much about how to address the people factor but quite simply, it's a very complicated and difficult issue to address. So instead, we are stuck with this focus on guns themselves which is secondary to the root issue. What would you suggest we do to address the people side of the issue?

The majority of people respond to reward and punishment, and the vast majority of these people are legal citizens. No matter what you do though, you cannot create a utopian society where everyone behaves in a positive manner. It's just not human nature. You will always have incidents where individuals take actions without the regard for other people's lives (or their own).

You can strengthen the punishment of individuals that use firearms, but that will not address the issue of those who do not have any care for their own lives (i.e. Lanza). These suicidal tendencies that they exhibit are not something that you can remove via the legislative process. Their issues have to be addressed at a local level, via bonding through friendships, finding hope for their future, establishment of goals, and having the realization that they have a responsibility to an authority, among many other possible positive reinforcements. Congress does not have the ability to address these very personal issues that some people have, nor should Congress be responsible for that level of interaction with individuals.

Society has experienced many horrific incidents throughout the past, and will continue to have them happen, no matter what legislative measures are passed. Removing an inanimate object from millions of law abiding citizens in a non-productive effort to prevent a few individuals from getting their hands on them is the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[bu villain]

It is an illogical concept to conclude that guns in the hands of criminals would dry up because you removed a few select rifles from legal citizens. History does not support that notion. It didn't even start to happen during the last 10 year ban, nor did handguns disappear in DC under their handgun ban. Criminals disregard the law. There is only irrational hope, not logic, to think that it would work. Countries that do have total firearms bans still have criminals with guns.

I agree with everything you are saying but I think you are oversimplifying the oppositions argument. Countries that have total firearms bans do still have gun crimes but they are much rarer than here.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but want to expand on these two sentences:

No matter what you do though, you cannot create a utopian society where everyone behaves in a positive manner. It's just not human nature.

I don't think anyone expects gun control laws to create a utopian society with no gun crime. However, they do expect they can create a society with a little LESS gun crime.

Congress does not have the ability to address these very personal issues that some people have, nor should Congress be responsible for that level of interaction with individuals.

I think you are right about the level at which Congress can help but I don't agree there is nothing they can do. For example, I think they could fund some studies that help to better understand the causes of gun crimes and mental instability. They could also support education and awareness programs to help identify warning signs of mental instability. There are also numerous other items I have discussed in this thread and in another that would help reduce gun crime that results from poverty and gang affiliation.

[.blank cd]

It is an illogical concept to conclude that guns in the hands of criminals would dry up because you removed a few select rifles from legal citizens.

How do you come to the conclusion that manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy is the same thing as removing that commodity from legal citizens?

History does not support that notion. It didn't even start to happen during the last 10 year ban, nor did handguns disappear in DC under their handgun ban. Criminals disregard the law. There is only irrational hope, not logic, to think that it would work. Countries that do have total firearms bans still have criminals with guns.

So we shouldn't adapt laws because criminals don't follow them?

[Sinfix_15]

This basically sums up a major part of the debate and what blank was getting at with his single gun manufacturer scenario.



Many people are fine with reducing the supply of guns to citizens in order to reduce the supply to criminals. The definition of rare is hard to define but I think many people would argue that as long as they became rarer over any time period, that would be a good thing. I'm not necessarily advocating that position but that is what I understand the logic to be.



I totally agree with what you just stated David. Certain gun control efforts are not realistically possible so they will go after what they can, hence the focus on assault rifles. Neither side seems to be proposing much about how to address the people factor but quite simply, it's a very complicated and difficult issue to address. So instead, we are stuck with this focus on guns themselves which is secondary to the root issue. What would you suggest we do to address the people side of the issue?

So why dont democrats just be honest? Anyone paying attention knows what their true agenda is.......

As ive said from the very beginning..... Obama is anti-gun.... democrats are collectively anti-gun.... blank has been playing the denial game. If you have to lie to push your agenda, maybe your agenda isnt worthy of pushing.

[bu villain]

So we shouldn't adapt laws because criminals don't follow them?

I never understood that line of argument either. It's like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because people will still break them. The point of laws isn't to magically stop everyone from doing that action, it's so we can punish them when they do.

[Sinfix_15]

I never understood that line of argument either. It's like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because people will still break them. The point of laws isn't to magically stop everyone from doing that action, it's so we can punish them when they do.

Imposing stricter laws on already law abiding citizens has no effect on criminals.

Punish criminals when they commit crimes with guns. "punish them when they do" and quit punishing me for no reason. Democrats dont care about criminals or safety.... they have a grand scheme of things and they will use any footing to keep their "master plan" on track. If america went the rest of the year without a single gun murder, democrats will still be trying to ban guns.

[David88vert]

I agree with everything you are saying but I think you are oversimplifying the oppositions argument. Countries that have total firearms bans do still have gun crimes but they are much rarer than here.

You are talking about countries that started off with little to no individual gun ownership, and with less diversity and variety of culture than the US.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but want to expand on these two sentences:

I don't think anyone expects gun control laws to create a utopian society with no gun crime. However, they do expect they can create a society with a little LESS gun crime.

The FBI statistics show that the violent crime rate and the murder rate has been dropping for over 20 years. The expiration of the previous assault weapons ban did not cause the rate to rise, nor did its implementation have a measurable impact. You can look up these numbers, they are public.

I think you are right about the level at which Congress can help but I don't agree there is nothing they can do. For example, I think they could fund some studies that help to better understand the causes of gun crimes and mental instability. They could also support education and awareness programs to help identify warning signs of mental instability. There are also numerous other items I have discussed in this thread and in another that would help reduce gun crime that results from poverty and gang affiliation.

Funding these studies would take tax dollars from other programs, or would increase the deficit, with no guarantee of ROI. These projects are not clearly in the scope of the government's role in individual lives. There are many private think tanks and universities that would be better suited to enter this arena, and let the government focus on more pressing matters that would affect the majority of Americans lives.

[David88vert]

How do you come to the conclusion that manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy is the same thing as removing that commodity from legal citizens?


So we shouldn't adapt laws because criminals don't follow them?

Feinstein's bill targets select rifles for a ban. Do you not understand this? Her goal is to remove these weapons - that is what she has stated numerous times. Restricting the manufacturing and importation of an item to specifically dry up that availability of that item (go look it up on her website) is removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. If you can't understand that, perhaps you should find a picture book, rather than attempt to participate in a political discussion.

Criminals don't follow the law - that is why they are criminals. Jeez....
Legislation is passed for ALL people within the jurisdiction of the legal system. Only the non-criminals adhere to it though.

[bu villain]

Imposing stricter laws on already law abiding citizens has no effect on criminals.

Punish criminals when they commit crimes with guns. "punish them when they do" and quit punishing me for no reason.

Stricter laws would have an effect on them because they could be punished for violating those new laws. They can't be punished for breaking a non-existent law. For example, right now no private party can be punished for selling a gun to a felon because there is no law requiring them to check to see if that person is a felon.

[David88vert]

Stricter laws would have an effect on them because they could be punished for violating those new laws. They can't be punished for breaking a non-existent law. For example, right now no private party can be punished for selling a gun to a felon because there is no law requiring them to check to see if that person is a felon.

While the seller is not breaking the law, the buyer is breaking the law if he is a felon buying a firearm. The crime is still being committed, and the person that should be punished (the one that knows that he is a felon) is still breaking a law that he can be punished for. Our current law still works.

Your proposal would take a person who is doing a completely legal thing - selling a firearm privately, and would turn them into a criminal.
The person selling the firearm has no legal right to look into the private history of the person purchasing the firearm.

[Sinfix_15]

Stricter laws would have an effect on them because they could be punished for violating those new laws. They can't be punished for breaking a non-existent law. For example, right now no private party can be punished for selling a gun to a felon because there is no law requiring them to check to see if that person is a felon.

So impose stricter punishments on felons for obtaining guns. Theyre willingly breaking the law when they attempt to purchase a gun.

If someone steals my car, you punish the car thief, you dont make it illegal to leave your doors unlocked.

[bu villain]

You are talking about countries that started off with little to no individual gun ownership, and with less diversity and variety of culture than the US.

The FBI statistics show that the violent crime rate and the murder rate has been dropping for over 20 years. The expiration of the previous assault weapons ban did not cause the rate to rise, nor did its implementation have a measurable impact. You can look up these numbers, they are public.

I agree that it is not 100% proven that banning guns would reduce gun crime but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that it might reduce it just a little bit. I do agree that only banning assault rifles is pretty much pointless.

Funding these studies would take tax dollars from other programs, or would increase the deficit, with no guarantee of ROI. These projects are not clearly in the scope of the government's role in individual lives. There are many private think tanks and universities that would be better suited to enter this arena, and let the government focus on more pressing matters that would affect the majority of Americans lives.

I don't think no guarantee of ROI is a good reason not to do it. Sometimes you have to take chances and what I am proposing would be a tiny fraction of the budget. I mean less than a tenth of a percent. I think the work should be done primarily by private entities and universities, I am mostly talking about funding. If they were already making significant progress without government intervention I would say that is best but I'm not sure much of that is going on.

[bu villain]

While the seller is not breaking the law, the buyer is breaking the law if he is a felon buying a firearm. The crime is still being committed, and the person that should be punished (the one that knows that he is a felon) is still breaking a law that he can be punished for. Our current law still works.

Your proposal would take a person who is doing a completely legal thing - selling a firearm privately, and would turn them into a criminal.
The person selling the firearm has no legal right to look into the private history of the person purchasing the firearm.

They would have the right to look into their private history if the law gave them that right.

So impose stricter punishments on felons for obtaining guns. Theyre willingly breaking the law when they attempt to purchase a gun.

If someone steals my car, you punish the car thief, you dont make it illegal to leave your doors unlocked.

You are both right in that I chose a bad example since it is already illegal for felons to buy a gun. But I don't think asking the public to take small actions that help prevent a crime from being committed is totally unreasonable.

[David88vert]

I agree that it is not 100% proven that banning guns would reduce gun crime but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that it might reduce it just a little bit. I do agree that only banning assault rifles is pretty much pointless.



I don't think no guarantee of ROI is a good reason not to do it. Sometimes you have to take chances and what I am proposing would be a tiny fraction of the budget. I mean less than a tenth of a percent. I think the work should be done primarily by private entities and universities, I am mostly talking about funding. If they were already making significant progress without government intervention I would say that is best but I'm not sure much of that is going on.

Where do we cut the funding from to give it to this new study? Something somewhere has to give. That's how it works in the real world. I deal with it everyday. There is a budget, and if you are already in the negative, you have to make cuts somewhere.

It's nice to say to fund it, but all studies run over budget, and the money is ultimately coming out of our pockets. How many people would it really affect? 3-4 shootings a year? 250 people affected per shooting? 1000 people? Congress should be looking to resolve issue that affect 80% of the people first, not 0.0008% first.

[David88vert]

They would have the right to look into their private history if the law gave them that right.

You are both right in that I chose a bad example since it is already illegal for felons to buy a gun. But I don't think asking the public to take small actions that help prevent a crime from being committed is totally unreasonable.

When you sell a car, you are not required to verify that the buyer's drivers license is valid and has the correct information, nor that he has valid insurance, or any other private information.
When you sell a house, the buyer and seller are usually kept separate by attorneys and real estate agents. You do not have the obligation, responsibility, or privilege to verify income, residency, etc.

With all of the identity theft currently happening, it would be highly irresponsible of Congress to pass any law dictating that another individual be given the right to look into another's personal history.

[Sinfix_15]

They would have the right to look into their private history if the law gave them that right.



You are both right in that I chose a bad example since it is already illegal for felons to buy a gun. But I don't think asking the public to take small actions that help prevent a crime from being committed is totally unreasonable.

Ok, its illegal for felons to buy guns...... get out there and start enforcing that law. Case closed.

[bu villain]

Where do we cut the funding from to give it to this new study? Something somewhere has to give. That's how it works in the real world. I deal with it everyday. There is a budget, and if you are already in the negative, you have to make cuts somewhere.

It's nice to say to fund it, but all studies run over budget, and the money is ultimately coming out of our pockets. How many people would it really affect? 3-4 shootings a year? 250 people affected per shooting? 1000 people? Congress should be looking to resolve issue that affect 80% of the people first, not 0.0008% first.

I think everyone in here would agree our budget is already rather bloated so there are dozens of places I would gladly cut and redirect the money towards this. The things I am proposing would help against all gun crime, not just the relatively rare mass shootings from crazy people.

When you sell a car, you are not required to verify that the buyer's drivers license is valid and has the correct information, nor that he has valid insurance, or any other private information.
When you sell a house, the buyer and seller are usually kept separate by attorneys and real estate agents. You do not have the obligation, responsibility, or privilege to verify income, residency, etc.

With all of the identity theft currently happening, it would be highly irresponsible of Congress to pass any law dictating that another individual be given the right to look into another's personal history.

I don't see why guns should have to be treated the same way home and car purchases are. We already have a law that says gun dealers have to run a background check so I think that is a better place for comparison than home or cars sales. Your point about identity theft is a valid concern although I think it's fairly easy to get around. You could simply call a cop to come check out the buyers credentials similar to how you have to have a cop come check the vin number of an old car you buy with no title to make sure it isn't stolen before you can register it.

Ok, its illegal for felons to buy guns...... get out there and start enforcing that law. Case closed.

No one is saying we shouldn't enforce that law.

[Sinfix_15]

No one is saying we shouldn't enforce that law.

but rather than focusing on enforcing that existing law..... it's better to create 100 new ways for normal law abiding citizens to be labeled criminals?

I will be a criminal when/if these laws take effect.

[bu villain]

but rather than focusing on enforcing that existing law..... it's better to create 100 new ways for normal law abiding citizens to be labeled criminals?

No, a law like background checks would help to enforce the existing law since we could catch felons trying to buy guns from individuals. I would certainly not support 100 new laws but maybe 1 or 2. Also, calling law abiding citizens criminals is an oxymoron. You either are a criminal or a law abiding citizen, you can't be both.

[David88vert]

I think everyone in here would agree our budget is already rather bloated so there are dozens of places I would gladly cut and redirect the money towards this. The things I am proposing would help against all gun crime, not just the relatively rare mass shootings from crazy people.

I don't see why guns should have to be treated the same way home and car purchases are. We already have a law that says gun dealers have to run a background check so I think that is a better place for comparison than home or cars sales. Your point about identity theft is a valid concern although I think it's fairly easy to get around. You could simply call a cop to come check out the buyers credentials similar to how you have to have a cop come check the vin number of an old car you buy with no title to make sure it isn't stolen before you can register it.

Get Congress and Obama to cut their spending in half and you might be able to find a few dollars for a study. Good luck with that.
The Democrats might try to use guns on you if you try to take away tax revenue from them....

Guns, homes, and cars are all private property, and individual sales of legal private property is generally outside of the scope of the federal government.
in your scenario, the buyer is asking the local authorities to help him protect himself by checking into the validity of an item, not a person's history. In the scenario of selling a firearm, the seller would be asking the police to research a the buyer's history. Big difference.
Even FFL dealers don't get history on their buyers. They simply get an approval or rejection on the applicant.

The only possible way that a regulation of private sales would work, is if all sales were conducted at FFL dealers, and all FFL dealers were either compensated for their time, or were forced to provide the service at their own cost (time is money).
There would still be plenty of people who would sell outside the system though.

[.blank cd]

Feinstein's bill targets select rifles for a ban. Do you not understand this? Her goal is to remove these weapons - that is what she has stated numerous times. Restricting the manufacturing and importation of an item to specifically dry up that availability of that item (go look it up on her website) is removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. If you can't understand that, perhaps you should find a picture book, rather than attempt to participate in a political discussion.

Lets see if I can explain this to you any simpler again...

Is it possible Feinstein is playing a political game to move the discussion to the center by pretending to want to "remove" assault weapons? A shred of possibility?

Manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy DOES NOT = removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. It would be best if you just agree now and said "ohhhhhh" before I give you an example of this happening right under your nose as we speak and make you look like a fool again. There is no debate about this, this is an indisputable fact.

[.blank cd]

While the seller is not breaking the law, the buyer is breaking the law if he is a felon buying a firearm. The crime is still being committed, and the person that should be punished (the one that knows that he is a felon) is still breaking a law that he can be punished for. Our current law still works.

It sort of works until that felon goes and shoots someone. OR you could prevent the sale from happening. Dealers are required to check, there's absolutely zero reason private sales shouldn't be held to the same standard.

Your proposal would take a person who is doing a completely legal thing - selling a firearm privately, and would turn them into a criminal.

No, it would not. A responsible law abiding citizen would follow the new law. A responsible citizen should be doing this anyway.

[Sinfix_15]

It sort of works until that felon goes and shoots someone. OR you could prevent the sale from happening. Dealers are required to check, there's absolutely zero reason private sales shouldn't be held to the same standard.

No, it would not. A responsible law abiding citizen would follow the new law. A responsible citizen should be doing this anyway.

Should i have to have the FDA inspect my thanksgiving dinner?

[.blank cd]

Should i have to have the FDA inspect my thanksgiving dinner?

They already do.

And when you go out to eat, they do it there too.

[Sinfix_15]

They already do.

And when you go out to eat, they do it there too.

Really, so if i step outside, shoot a pig with an AR15 and bbq it, that's FDA inspected?

Should i be arrested for serving BBQ to my friends?

[Sinfix_15]

NRA500 this weekend..... america as it should be.

[.blank cd]

Really, so if i step outside, shoot a pig with an AR15 and bbq it, that's FDA inspected?

Should i be arrested for serving BBQ to my friends?

Depends....

Are we switching the conversation over to hand-made weapons?

[Sinfix_15]

Depends....

Are we switching the conversation over to hand-made weapons?

Nope... still talking about the private endeavors of citizens in private.... though i suspect we will reach that topic at some point.

The FDA regulates what a restaurant sells to people, does that mean they should regulate the food i serve to my family in private also? Should i have to keep a temperature holding log for the leftovers in my fridge?.... you know.... because a business does.

[.blank cd]

Nope... still talking about the private endeavors of citizens in private.... though i suspect we will reach that topic at some point.

You're talking about making your own food in your own home, right? Thats a private endeavor, right? Is that not analogous to making your own gun at home?

The FDA regulates what a restaurant sells to people, does that mean they should regulate the food i serve to my family in private also? Should i have to keep a temperature holding log for the leftovers in my fridge?.... you know.... because a business does.

If you sell food to the public, yes. You should. Lol.

If you build your own car and sell them to the public, you have to have a license too

So how are guns different?

The FDA regulates the food you buy and make in your home too. Do you know what the purpose of the FDA is?

[Sinfix_15]

You're talking about making your own food in your own home, right? Thats a private endeavor, right? Is that not analogous to making your own gun at home?

If you sell food to the public, yes. You should. Lol.

If you build your own car and sell them to the public, you have to have a license too

So how are guns different?

The FDA regulates the food you buy and make in your home too. Do you know what the purpose of the FDA is?

Is there any area of your life that you do not wish the government to be a part of?

[David88vert]

Is it possible Feinstein is playing a political game to move the discussion to the center by pretending to want to "remove" assault weapons? A shred of possibility?

No. Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Like I said, I've lived through this before. She is promoting the bill exactly how she wants it. Read the 1994 bill as well.

Manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy DOES NOT = removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. It would be best if you just agree now and said "ohhhhhh" before I give you an example of this happening right under your nose as we speak and make you look like a fool again. There is no debate about this, this is an indisputable fact.

You keep making statements like these, but you never come through..... you are just talk....

[.blank cd]

Is there any area of your life that you do not wish the government to be a part of?

A lot of stuff actually.

I don't see the harm in the government having some regulatory oversight on some things as long as its in the public interest. Roads, education, food, drugs, businesses that take the money I earn, businesses that hold all the money I earn. Etc. etc....

[David88vert]

It sort of works until that felon goes and shoots someone. OR you could prevent the sale from happening. Dealers are required to check, there's absolutely zero reason private sales shouldn't be held to the same standard.

No, it would not. A responsible law abiding citizen would follow the new law. A responsible citizen should be doing this anyway.

Dealers have a system in place that allows them to quickly get an approval or rejection right there on the spot. They are a business with a license, doing volumes of sales. Individuals do not have a system like that in place, nor is there any proposal or plan being made to give that access to private individuals, outside of them having to go to a FFL dealer and have the dealer do the request.

Your lack of common sense and critical thinking is amazing.

[.blank cd]

No. Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Like I said, I've lived through this before. She is promoting the bill exactly how she wants it. Read the 1994 bill as well.

, I've seen that bill, I understand you lived through it and that you believe I was a baby during 94. That's fine.

Since you have living experience of the past bill, answer me this: After the passage of this bill in 94, did the United States turn into WW2 era Nazi Germany?

You keep making statements like these, but you never come through..... you are just talk....

That's because I'm hoping you're smart enough to figure it out. Either that, or you backpedal into something else when you realize you're misinformed. Please be smart enough to figure this out on your own. Should I draw you a picture?

[David88vert]

You're talking about making your own food in your own home, right? Thats a private endeavor, right? Is that not analogous to making your own gun at home?

If you sell food to the public, yes. You should. Lol.

If you build your own car and sell them to the public, you have to have a license too

So how are guns different?

The FDA regulates the food you buy and make in your home too. Do you know what the purpose of the FDA is?

Gun manufacturers do have to be licensed, and are regulated. No one has said that they shouldn't be.

[.blank cd]

Dealers have a system in place that allows them to quickly get an approval or rejection right there on the spot. They are a business with a license, doing volumes of sales. Individuals do not have a system like that in place, nor is there any proposal or plan being made to give that access to private individuals, outside of them having to go to a FFL dealer and have the dealer do the request.

So, if the public gets universal background checks through, do you think maybe THEN a system would be developed to implement it?

Do you believe there is not a rudimentary version of this system in place?

AND if such a system were developed, do you think it would have an impact on the sales of guns to criminals?

[.blank cd]

Sinfix was suggesting they shouldn't.

[David88vert]

, I've seen that bill, I understand you lived through it and that you believe I was a baby during 94. That's fine.
Since you have living experience of the past bill, answer me this: After the passage of this bill in 94, did the United States turn into WW2 era Nazi Germany?

Absolutely not. It did not do anything positive or negative in making us safer OR leading to a loss of other freedoms. It did lead to discussion on the possibility of banning handguns though. There was not enough support for that. It also lead to repeated endeavors by Feinstein to try to make it a permanent ban, rather than just 10 years. She failed to extend the ban, but this time she is proposing to not have a time limit on the ban. That means no voting again in 10 years to see if it is working or not. Why not just propose another 10 year trial run?

You may not have been around during the last ban, but your parents were. You can discuss it with your father, and get his insights.

That's because I'm hoping you're smart enough to figure it out. Either that, or you backpedal into something else when you realize you're misinformed. Please be smart enough to figure this out on your own. Should I draw you a picture?

As I've said many times, please do.....
I ask you to explain things, and you just ignore them - see yesterday's posts, and the day before, and the day before that....

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix was suggesting they shouldn't.

Regulated in terms of their product being safe to use. Not responsible for the misuse of criminals.

Smith and wesson should be regulated so that they do not make a gun that blows up in my hand. They shouldnt be responsible for criminal activity.