Whoa, before you go off in another direction. Do you now understand that I was NOT talking about you or your family. Do you ackowledge this?

Did you go back and read about what we have already said about Background checks or are you just demanding to be heard and want people to jump to your questions? I post say: May 1st 2:19 PM why not.. Why not check that post out and others peoples thoughts.

Why do you worry so much and make so many comments about how people post vs. what their posts points are?
Why not just make your point clear instead of attacking a persons post pattern. It is quite noticable that you have had some education with your terms about the way people post. Good for you, but it doesn't help your point and comes across as an attack.

Facts, it is facts what will make your point. And I say POINT not argument because that sounds

Now back to your last post. Your Sandy Hook shooter would not have been stopped by a Backgrond Check, How could he. He didn't have a License, he didn't own a gun. And as pointed out before he stole his weapons. Just the way most criminals get theirs.

Backgrounds checks are done on the individual person applying for a weapon or license. Should "hard core" mental person get a license or permit- NO

He stole his mother's weapons- a major mistake made on her part for not keeping them safely away. But as I have said before she paid with her life for making those mistakes.

And I will make this statement. I don't want new laws made on someone FEELINGS. OR "if it would save on person concept."

People have to stop trying to solve these problems by taking good peoples rights away as an easy answer to a tuff problem no matter what their feeling are. And the worst happens when the ones who whine the most don't have any skin in the game so they don't care to give others rights away. It is that simple.

The real laugh are those who think we have to "GIVE" reasons to own and have guns.

Don't you think it's easier to kill a person with a gun than with a knife?

Don't you think it's easier to kill a person with a gun than with a knife?

[ I also had read the Turnbull's post right after he posted it. And he said that unlike you, he had no problem submitting to a background check. You on the other hand, never said why you are against background checks or what harm could it bring about. Give it time, compare numbers after a period of time. If it didn't change the number of gun related deaths, then we could agree that mandatory background checks are useless.

because I do know the truth

Here you remember Turnbull's post because it agrees for you but you can't seem to remeber mine before it.

TURNBULLS: My view: although expanded background checks would not have prevented the CT horror, they might--just might--prevent some people who shouldn't have firearms from buying them. As a law-abiding gun owner and a CCW holder, I would not have objected to submitting to a background check at a gun show.

For me "just might" isn't a good enough reason, just like "if it save just one life"



Originally Posted By: dontomasso

I guess all those law enforcement types who favor background checks (NOT Gun Control) don't know what they are talking about.


Well, lets see who they are then. Would love to put an expert name to your statement.

I see you like to keep throwing this up...We already have checks here in NEW YORK STATE and many other states, but it is thrown around like "Checks" are the big crime stopper. More like the answer if they aren't going to ban all those scary rifles....lets feel safe and do background checks.

You do understand that a background check no matter how many you do is not going to keep a gun from a crimal right?

FBI states that 9 out 0f 10 weapons used are stolen or not register to people

Excuse me- to the right people-

There that is why!

And let me give a few more reasons:

1)We already have gone thru checks to get a permit. license and purchase of guns already,

2)No Money for the people to handle yet another group of checks.
They already have a two year wait just to get your permts in some areas so how far back do you want people tp wait while you add more hurdles

And the most important thing to remember:
IT is not going to keep a gun from a crimal.
PROVEN FACT!

Now you know - for sure!

It's good enough for the rest of us who are obviously here in this bill's favor.

It's good enough for the rest of us who are obviously here in this bill's favor.

I think my last post explains that for ya.
to a tee

lets be honest here for a second. you, along with many others here, are in favor of any and all bills restricting guns, no matter how minor or major. you don't have a horse in the race, so in reality it doesn't matter what is proposed, as long as its restrictive you will be in favor of it. this is the reason that so many in the firearms community are fed up, enough's enough. alot of people have reached their line in the sand, and are going to stand firmly. no more restrictions, not a single one.

the truth is, no matter if this bill passed or not, there would be a certain group already working on the next bill, and the next, and so on. we have heard it from the presidents own mouth, as well as many other politicians, this is only the beginning. its never going to be good enough for some until all of the guns are gone, and anybody arguing thats not the case in living in a fantasy world.

A Maher is what you get when you breed a liberal, self-hating Catholic with a self-hating Jew, then fail to tell the kid that he's half Jewish until he's an adult (true story). You end up with a glib, Godless, self-hating douchebag who, failing at comedy, takes a turn so far to the left to make a buck, that he'd make a Kennedy blush.

Sorry, Afs. I love ya, but generally speaking I hate that guy (but I give him HUGE props for straightening out that asshole about the Boston Marathon attack ).

Who is going to attack my house, the mexican drug cartel?