Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[LegendKiller]

The FBI is most certainly not aware of every gun sale that happens or anything even remotely close to it. Background checks are only done on sales that come from dealers; private sales are conducted with no checks whatsoever. After Sandy Hook there was a push for universal background checks that had overwhelming public support but the NRA killed it.

So which mass shootings recently occurred from guns purchased through personal transactions?

I understand your point. Mine is that it doesnt matter.

 

[K1052]

This horrible incident is the epitomy of what gun control people have proposed and it failed miserably. That is a major part of the story that is barely being talked about. Interviewed twice by the FBI, passed extensive background checks due to his position, still bought guns and mowed people down.

So what is their answer? To filibuster the senate so they can pass the ability to deny constitutional rights based on secretive govt lists. Nice! This proposed law also affects the 1st amendment along with the 5th. This is the democrat party in 2016. 4 months before a possible Trump administration they are ramping up the ability of govt to crush our rights.

Conceptually the idea of prohibiting moderate to high risk individuals (terror links, psychological issues, etc) from purchasing guns would probably pass constitutional muster depending how it was implemented and what the process looked like. Even in the Heller decision the majority held that firearms could still be regulated and that some people, while citizens, could indeed be prohibited from owning them.

I'm not sure how you'd go about this other than implementing a list(s) generated by the government. Presuming an independent 3rd party (judge or panel of judges) was empowered to make determinations through a transparent appeals process the odds that the Supreme Court would give something like this the nod are good I think.

 

[glenn1]

Conceptually the idea of prohibiting moderate to high risk individuals (terror links, psychological issues, etc) from purchasing guns would probably pass constitutional muster depending how it was implemented and what the process looked like. Even in the Heller decision the majority held that firearms could still be regulated and that some people, while citizens, could indeed be prohibited from owning them.

I'm not sure how you'd go about this other than implementing a list(s) generated by the government. Presuming an independent 3rd party (judge or panel of judges) was empowered to make determinations through a transparent appeals process the odds that the Supreme Court would give something like this the nod are good I think.

Do you think the No-Fly List meets the criteria you just suggested?

 

[K1052]

Do you think the No-Fly List meets the criteria you just suggested?

I don't and I don't support using it for such a purpose.

 

[Genx87]

The leader of the republican party is meeting with the NRA to try to ban those on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. Are you sure it's only the dems?

When it comes to filibustering the senate to get a vote on this ridiculous leigislation, yes.

 

[hal2kilo]

i'm surprised .. puzzled as to why he was on Colbert twice in a month; he's the devil according to the left.

re: gun control ..

my home country has some very, very strict gun laws; you can't have guns.
guess what? we have guns. we have police guns, security guard guns, hunter guns, range guns, home defense guns, we even manufacture guns, which we then sell to you.
Austria makes guns; France makes guns, Italians make guns, the UK makes bombs.

we have guns AND we have gun control. i'm a citizen with no risks associated with my job, i have no valuables to defend, an not a target of assassinations, and i do not hunt - i'm not getting a gun. The laws will simply not permit me to have a dangerous object which i have no reason to own.

Nobody wants to take rifles away from people who bag deer and elk, they want to take guns away from people who do not have a reason to own one. You are already doing it for dangerous chemicals, restricted substances, and generally everything which can cause massive harm, why not guns?

re: second amendment
there's so much wrong with the interpretation of this, i'm shocked nobody brought it up.
first off, a single individual is not a militia. the swiss have a militia, they all own guns for the purpose of defending their state - do something similar, but don't claim this gives you the right to arm yourself independently.

also, so many times it has been argued that it was meant to give a means to the people to defend their freedom should the government become too invasive.

ok;

when are you gonna start shooting?

when are you gonna start killing this government? because it's already well beyond invasive, from income taxing to the draft, forcing your kids to take evil vaccinations, telling you who you can and cannot marry ...surveillance, drone strikes, forced removals without trial, suspension of law, police brutality, corruption ..

maybe because you can't? or maybe because, too, you cannot have a modern country without a proper government.

the constitution is obsolete; you need to face the reality of being a country.
welcome to the club of "countries who have not just been founded".

Using reason and logic. Good luck with that. You dealing with absolutists.

 

[Artdeco]

The FBI is most certainly not aware of every gun sale that happens or anything even remotely close to it. Background checks are only done on sales that come from dealers; private sales are conducted with no checks whatsoever. After Sandy Hook there was a push for universal background checks that had overwhelming public support but the NRA killed it.

And more BS from someone who doesn't understand current gun laws...

Eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and D.C. require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers of all classes of firearms.

And here's the thing, if you don't follow the law in those states, it's a felony. I sure as hell don't want a felony conviction. But hey, let's make lawful gun owner's lives more complicated, it's only fair, right? The ATF did a sting and found 1/100 unregulated private sales wouldn't have passed the background check, but you know, they buried that data because it didn't fit the narrative.

But hey, please keep posting misinformation, it's entertaining to see how little you know.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Do you think the No-Fly List meets the criteria you just suggested?

IF the terror watch list, and the no-fly list were used as a criteria to disarm, I guarantee it would expand 3 fold. Look at the morphing, and the expansion, and the powers being granted to themselves of the TSA, NSA, IRS, EPA, and the border patrol in the last few years. We are now being subjected to random *check points* with questions, *papers*, and searches 100 miles away from the border, ---------- OF TENNESSEE!

 

[fskimospy]

And more BS from someone who doesn't understand current gun laws...

Eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington State) and D.C. require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers of all classes of firearms.

And here's the thing, if you don't follow the law in those states, it's a felony. I sure as hell don't want a felony conviction. But hey, let's make lawful gun owner's lives more complicated, it's only fair, right? The ATF did a sting and found 1/100 unregulated private sales wouldn't have passed the background check, but you know, they buried that data because it didn't fit the narrative.

But hey, please keep posting misinformation, it's entertaining to see how little you know.

That would mean that you could purchase a gun without a background check in 42/50 states. (84%). So not only do the vast majority of states not require such checks, but people who purchased them in other states can then transfer them into say, California, without a check.

One of us doesn't understand current gun laws, that's for sure.

 

[Artdeco]

That would mean that you could purchase a gun without a background check in 42/50 states. (84%). So not only do the vast majority of states not require such checks, but people who purchased them in other states can then transfer them into say, California, without a check.

One of us doesn't understand current gun laws, that's for sure.

Um, did you smoke crack this morning, you said all private sales are unregulated, seems the most populated state, and the state with the 2nd highest number of guns does regulate every sale through an FBI background check.

Enjoy your ignorance and denial.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, did you smoke crack this morning, you said all private sales are unregulated, seems the most populated state, and the state with the 2nd highest number of guns does regulate every sale through an FBI background check.

Enjoy your ignorance and denial.

I was talking about federal law as was basically every other person in this thread. It's amusing that you thought you had some sort of point to score when 16% of states conduct their own background checks. Even with them, state laws on gun sales are mostly useless for the reason I just mentioned, which is that you can go to the next state over and avoid them.

I love how anti gun control people think that only they understand guns and how gun laws work. I have plenty of experience with guns in my life and we absolutely need much greater federal regulation of their ownership.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Gun guys I understand your passion but its time to join the fold and discuss rational measures to prevent mass shootings. The tide has turned the vast majority of each party accept more gun control. Speak up in a productive manner or be ignored.
See the linked story. The guy who invented the M16-AR15 and so forth NEVER OWNED ONE AND NEVER KEPT ONE IN THE HOUSE
From his family:

the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fa...intend-it-for-civilians/ar-AAh7hM9?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[glenn1]

That would mean that you could purchase a gun without a background check in 42/50 states. (84%). So not only do the vast majority of states not require such checks, but people who purchased them in other states can then transfer them into say, California, without a check.

One of us doesn't understand current gun laws, that's for sure.

Since you'd obviously like universal background check to be mandatory nationwide, can you elaborate on how you'd implement it? Currently the authorized users of the NCIS system used for background checks is limited to FFL holders (Federal Firearms Licensed sellers). Would you open the tool to any private seller to use the system? What sort of fees (if any) would you charge for conducting the background check? What sort of legal obligations would a private seller have to refer to law enforcement someone on the list who attempts to purchase a firearm?

 

[fskimospy]

Since you'd obviously like universal background check to be mandatory nationwide, can you elaborate on how you'd implement it? Currently the authorized users of the NCIS system used for background checks is limited to FFL holders (Federal Firearms Licensed sellers). Would you open the tool to any private seller to use the system? What sort of fees (if any) would you charge for conducting the background check? What sort of legal obligations would a private seller have to refer to law enforcement someone on the list who attempts to purchase a firearm?

Just make it so all firearm transfers have to be done through an FFL instead of only certain ones. Keep everything else the same.

 

[Artdeco]

I was talking about federal law as was basically every other person in this thread. It's amusing that you thought you had some sort of point to score when 16% of states conduct their own background checks. Even with them, state laws on gun sales are mostly useless for the reason I just mentioned, which is that you can go to the next state over and avoid them.

I love how anti gun control people think that only they understand guns and how gun laws work. I have plenty of experience with guns in my life and we absolutely need much greater federal regulation of their ownership.

Oh, so you didn't post what you meant when you said all private sales are unregulated? Damn, I missed that part. I guess the felony convictions for violating those laws don't count either, since they're just puny state laws.

My state calls the purchase of a firearm in another state a felony too, but hey, I can see why you have the reputation you do, enjoy your ignorance, please keep posting.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, so you didn't post what you meant when you said all private sales are unregulated? Damn, I missed that part. I guess the felony convictions for violating those laws don't count either, since they're just puny state laws.

My state calls the purchase of a firearm in another state a felony too, but hey, I can see why you have the reputation you do, enjoy your ignorance, please keep posting.

I didn't say they were unregulated, I said that they did not require a background check when I was speaking in reference to federal law. This is undeniably true. I don't know why you're trying to argue this. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Artdeco]

I didn't say they were unregulated, I said that they did not require a background check when I was speaking in reference to federal law. This is undeniably true. I don't know why you're trying to argue this. You're embarrassing yourself.

I don't think so, your ignorance and bias is showing, you did not say federal law, please direct me to where you posted federal law in your original post. Like I said, I can see why you have a reputation, please keep posting lies, and lying to yourself.

 

[Subyman]

So which mass shootings recently occurred from guns purchased through personal transactions?

I understand your point. Mine is that it doesnt matter.

My thoughts would be, they haven't needed to go through the private sector. They can just as easily walk into Bass Pro and load up. Once retail stores are tightened then private sales will need to be included in back ground checks too. Its the obvious next step for a potential criminal. For us normal folk, it could simply mean going to a FFL and pay a fee to do the transaction. This is already the case on practically any online sale.

Then if this forces the person to search for illegal weapons, the FBI has tools to shut them down.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think so, your ignorance and bias is showing, you did not say federal law, please direct me to where you posted federal law in your original post. Like I said, I can see why you have a reputation, please keep posting lies, and lying to yourself.

The thread is literally about Bill O'Reilly talking about the need for increased federal gun control laws. Any rational person would assume that if someone doesn't specify what law they are talking about that it is the one the thread is based around. They would certainly assume so after being told that. Your posts are showing you aren't rational.

I don't care what you think or about my supposed 'reputation'. You can't make me angry and you're just coming off as a ranting lunatic right now.

 

[LegendKiller]

Gun guys I understand your passion but its time to join the fold and discuss rational measures to prevent mass shootings. The tide has turned the vast majority of each party accept more gun control. Speak up in a productive manner or be ignored.
See the linked story. The guy who invented the M16-AR15 and so forth NEVER OWNED ONE AND NEVER KEPT ONE IN THE HOUSE
From his family:




http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fa...intend-it-for-civilians/ar-AAh7hM9?li=BBnb7Kz

Who cares? He is one guy and the gun is no different than any other gun.

What about a semi auto 30-06? Much more powerful, much more lethal.

 

[Artdeco]

The thread is literally about Bill O'Reilly talking about the need for increased federal gun control laws. Any rational person would assume that if someone doesn't specify what law they are talking about that it is the one the thread is based around. They would certainly assume so after being told that. Your posts are showing you aren't rational.

I don't care what you think or about my supposed 'reputation'. You can't make me angry and you're just coming off as a ranting lunatic right now.

Dude, I'm not angry, I think it's hilarious how you and the other SJW's cover up your ignorance with lies and backpedaling.

"Oh, I didn't mean that, and I really knew that, but those state felonies and imprisonment in a state prison really don't count, because reasons."

 

[fskimospy]

Dude, I'm not angry, I think it's hilarious how you and the other SJW's cover up your ignorance with lies.

I never said you were angry, I said you were an irrational, ranting person. That description seems to be right on the money.

 

[Artdeco]

I never said you were angry, I said you were an irrational, ranting person. That description seems to be right on the money.

Guess how many AR15's I own...

Any new laws and bans really won't affect me personally, hell, I'm poised to make some serious $ off you fools....

I think you and the other SJW's should go for a double secret ban, because reasons...

 

[Jaskalas]

Bazookas, Sherman tanks, and hand grenades aren't guns. He's also about 4 wars behind in technology, I'm surprised he didn't include Gatling guns on his list.

Or you could deal with the topic.
Those items are cited as references to powerful, outlawed, items.
There are lesser guns that meet the requirements of the second amendment. Bolt action rifles could remain legal. Difficult to conceal and no rapid fire.
All other guns could be restricted to trained professionals. Both current and ex military and police.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Who cares? He is one guy and the gun is no different than any other gun.

What about a semi auto 30-06? Much more powerful, much more lethal.

Apparently the majority of both parties care to some extent but keep on keeping on its your choice to add nothing.