Who here is part of the "92%"?

[Markp]

Thing is, I don't want a mentally disturbed neighbor to own a machine gun before the SHTF, or even any firearm for that matter.

The thing is that the government can't solve that problem. Let's assume that, rather than being a psychologist, I was mentally disturbed instead, a real psychopath. I had it together enough to fly under the radar, but internally a deeply disturbed and sadistic person hell bent on extracting revenge on a particular group, institution, or other entity in which large numbers of people were involved. Now let's make me moderately intelligent, modestly educated (high school education with shop classes), and working full time as a welder making a decent wage.

How would you stop me from getting a machine gun and engaging in mass violence?

The correct answer is, you couldn't, I would be able to acquire one with ease in less than 24 hours unless I was incarcerated for some other crime.

We can talk about all these stupid proposals all day long on how to prevent the criminal or the insane from acquiring weapons, but we can't even keep drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes out of high schools.

 

[fabsroman]

I'm sitting here reading about the two kids that died from the dirt wall collapse in Stanley, North Carolina. I am crying my eyes out when I read:

"When she came out of the hole she was so cold," Arwood, of Stanley, N.C., told The Associated Press in his first news media interview. "I just wanted for her to be warm. I just wanted to put my arms around her and tell her she would be safe....I promised her I'd keep her safe. I promised them I'd keep them safe and warm. I broke that promise."

http://news.yahoo.com/nc-man-says-tried-save-kids-buried-dirt-082249026.html

After I get my composure back and continue reading, I read something like this:

"Sheriff's deputies on Monday removed guns and a marijuana plant from Arwood's mobile home. Arwood is a felon who is not allowed to have guns. He was convicted in 2003 for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell."

I am now sad and angry. Just not as bad as after Newtown.

If only we could outlaw stupidity and prevent it from happening.

 

[Markp]

There is no reason a FTF sale cannot go through an FFL just as regulated sales have been required here in Maryland for almost a decade. Or, they can be done by the MSP. No Form 77R and 2 month wait though. That would be ridiculous. Of course, FTF transfers of regulated firearms right now only have a 7 day wait period.

Ultimately, the federal government should preempt every other government on these background checks and come up with something that is sufficient enough and quick enough for ALL firearm sales, and one wherein no record is retained after a certain number of years and any violation requires mandatory prison time.

It can be done. It is just a matter of coming together and getting it done, and then holding the private and government criminals accountable. Sell a gun without a NICS, mandatory sentence. Retain paperwork beyond the specified time period, mandatory sentence. PERIOD.

Sir, no offense, but you are deluded!

I have a few minor problems with this:

1. The tenth amendment, this who issue of background checks for in state commerce is NOT a federal issue. The states have the right to regulate commerce/activity within a state as long as it is consistent with respecting the rights of its citizenry.The rights of the state government preempt the federal government unless explicitly provided for under the constitution. Expanding federal power is not the right answer.

2. The second amendment, I should not need a state or federal permission slip to exercise my rights. I don't get a state background check to speak, think, buy a vehicle, conduct other private transactions, or travel within my state. How is this different?

3. It's an affront to the basic freedoms that are enshrined in the bill of rights. The federal government was never intended to provide for the regulation of individual lives but to make transactions between the states fair, equitable, and transparent. Expanding federal intrusion into our lives negates this basic principle.

 

[fabsroman]

The thing is that the government can't solve that problem. Let's assume that, rather than being a psychologist, I was mentally disturbed instead, a real psychopath. I had it together enough to fly under the radar, but internally a deeply disturbed and sadistic person hell bent on extracting revenge on a particular group, institution, or other entity in which large numbers of people were involved. Now let's make me moderately intelligent, modestly educated (high school education with shop classes), and working full time as a welder making a decent wage.

How would you stop me from getting a machine gun and engaging in mass violence?

The correct answer is, you couldn't, I would be able to acquire one with ease in less than 24 hours unless I was incarcerated for some other crime.

We can talk about all these stupid proposals all day long on how to prevent the criminal or the insane from acquiring weapons, but we can't even keep drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes out of high schools.

Why not assume you are a mentally disturbed psychologist? Is that just impossible.

And yes, there will always be the people that get through the safeguards in place. However, your scenario applies to very, very, very few incidents. Plus, I am not only worried about mass murders with complete background checks. am worried about just the single idiot that just wants to murder a single person. I think that is where people are getting hung up on this issue. It isn't just about preventing mass murders, but about preventing as many as possible. Being able to buy a gun FTF at a yard sale from granny just makes it that much easier for a violent felon to obtain a gun.

Thing is, I need to find some stats regarding where/how crime guns are obtained and why we cannot catch straw purchasers. I've already suggested a 1 year hold on reselling a handgun in Maryland that would require straw purchasers to have tons of money invested in handguns before they could resell them. I even suggested an audit whereby the MSP could require a handgun purchaser to show up at a barracks with the handgun during the 1 year period. The threat of an audit tends to keep a lot of people honest about income tax reporting.

Yes, there will always be somebody that can get around it. However, how many bombs have we seen built after Oklahoma? Making it harder to accomplish a bad thing, is a good thing, even if it will not be a complete absolute. The entire counter argument against background checks for all gun sales is 1) registry and 2) people want to be able to buy guns even if they are prohibited.

Based upon your logic, we shouldn't even have a NICS check for new gun sales and everybody should be able to buy as much gunpowder, fertilizer, diesel fuel, etc. because we will never be able to stop them all. Thing is, what if we stop 3,000 for every 1 that gets through because of the new law, versus 1,000 for every 1 that gets through? Sadly, we don't have enough people confessing to wanting to shoot up an elementary school, but being thwarted by one means or another.

What if we had a law requiring all firearms to be locked up securely when not in use and Adam Lanza's mother had obeyed that law and Adam Lanza could not have gotten to the guns?

Yeah, I can do the what ifs too. I fall somewhere in the middle of all this. I completely understand that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from our own government and for us to be able to protect ourselves when our government cannot (i.e., which is most of the time). However, I also CANNOT fathom what the parents of murdered children have to go through. I cried for 4 days because of Newtown and they weren't my kids. I just cannot fathom burying one of my kids.

I'm also in favor of armed bus drivers, armed teachers, and armed guards at schools. It is a sad time we live in nowadays.

FYI - I would have NO clue about how to obtain a machine gun in less than 24 hours even if I wanted to. Is this supposed to be common knowledge?

 

[fabsroman]

Sir, no offense, but you are deluded!

Ah, I see, I have run into a know it all that likes to use big words to call others stupid. Alright Einstein, enlighten me. I tend to keep an open mind. Funny thing is, on a cycling board they call me delusional for arguing on behalf of the 2nd Amendment. Don't tell me this board is like the hunting board I go to where they run everybody off that has anything to say that isn't pursuant to the right wing party line. That would actually be sad.

So, go ahead. Show me where I am wrong (i.e., delusional) and please use statistics if possible. Studies would work too. I promise not to call you names if I think what you set forth is incorrect. I'll just point out the holes.

 

[Markp]

Why not assume you are a mentally disturbed psychologist? Is that just impossible.

And yes, there will always be the people that get through the safeguards in place. However, your scenario applies to very, very, very few incidents. Plus, I am not only worried about mass murders with complete background checks. am worried about just the single idiot that just wants to murder a single person. I think that is where people are getting hung up on this issue. It isn't just about preventing mass murders, but about preventing as many as possible. Being able to buy a gun FTF at a yard sale from granny just makes it that much easier for a violent felon to obtain a gun.

Sure, few but high profile incidents. Where do you think the machine guns in the North Hollywood BOFA shootout came from?

Make it more difficult for felons to "buy" a gun and felons will turn to other means to acquire them. Right now, it's relatively easy to purchase FTF even for a prohibited person. What happens when you make that more difficult?

Where do drug users buy their drugs?

Thing is, I need to find some stats regarding where/how crime guns are obtained and why we cannot catch straw purchasers. I've already suggested a 1 year hold on reselling a handgun in Maryland that would require straw purchasers to have tons of money invested in handguns before they could resell them. I even suggested an audit whereby the MSP could require a handgun purchaser to show up at a barracks with the handgun during the 1 year period. The threat of an audit tends to keep a lot of people honest about income tax reporting.

You cannot catch straw purchasers because that's not the real problem. Most crime guns are acquired either legitimately, through face to face purchases, by theft, or illegal sales and in pretty much that order.

You will only succeed in moving the problem of questionable FTF purchases to theft or illegal sales. What keeps people honest about income tax reporting is that there is a huge machine in place to provide the IRS with data. Tell me the last stripper/waitress/cash worker/drug dealer you know who was honest on their taxes? You live in a fantasy world, if you believe that people don't cheat on their taxes in those professions.

Yes, there will always be somebody that can get around it. However, how many bombs have we seen built after Oklahoma? Making it harder to accomplish a bad thing, is a good thing, even if it will not be a complete absolute. The entire counter argument against background checks for all gun sales is 1) registry and 2) people want to be able to buy guns even if they are prohibited.

It's a matter of desire plus the availability of materials. Do you really believe what you are saying... that by regulating fertilizer sales we are all much safer. Let me provide you with a much better example. because not a lot of people want to blow up buildings,but a lot of people want to get high.

How has this plan worked for Methamphetamine? Dooh, that's right, we still have an epic meth problem in this country despite restrictions on all sorts of precursor chemicals.

Based upon your logic, we shouldn't even have a NICS check for new gun sales and everybody should be able to buy as much gunpowder, fertilizer, diesel fuel, etc. because we will never be able to stop them all. Thing is, what if we stop 3,000 for every 1 that gets through because of the new law, versus 1,000 for every 1 that gets through? Sadly, we don't have enough people confessing to wanting to shoot up an elementary school, but being thwarted by one means or another.

You're right, because it gives people a false sense of security. If you really believe that these regulations stop these crimes from happening, I don't think I will convince you not to surrender your freedoms.

What if we had a law requiring all firearms to be locked up securely when not in use and Adam Lanza's mother had obeyed that law and Adam Lanza could not have gotten to the guns?

You assume that A) she would have obeyed the law, and that B) He would have not been able to get a gun through other means. The problem lies in that he would have been able to get a firearm should he have wanted one. He was not a prohibited person.

Yeah, I can do the what ifs too. I fall somewhere in the middle of all this. I completely understand that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from our own government and for us to be able to protect ourselves when our government cannot (i.e., which is most of the time). However, I also CANNOT fathom what the parents of murdered children have to go through. I cried for 4 days because of Newtown and they weren't my kids. I just cannot fathom burying one of my kids.

Look the parents of these murdered children have my sincere sympathy, I feel horrible for what has happened to them. They are not responsible for the deaths of their children, Adam Lanza is. Unfortunately, he's dead and cannot answer for his crimes. That doesn't mean that these parents or anyone else gain the right to deny me my right to freedom, liberty, or self-defense as a result of Adam Lanza's actions.

I'm also in favor of armed bus drivers, armed teachers, and armed guards at schools. It is a sad time we live in nowadays.

It really is a sad time we live in. Society seems focused on sacrificing freedom for the illusion of security. Yet, this is a sociological problem and not a gun problem.

Despite enacting increasingly restrictive laws and removing freedoms, the horrors seem to continuously exceed that of previous horrible acts. This is directly attributable to a decay in society and not to inadequacy of legislation.

FYI - I would have NO clue about how to obtain a machine gun in less than 24 hours even if I wanted to. Is this supposed to be common knowledge?

Do a search, you have internet access. I assure you, that it's not as hard as you might think. How hard do you think it would be to build a full auto Sten gun in 9mm?

Mark

 

[Markp]

Ah, I see, I have run into a know it all that likes to use big words to call others stupid. Alright Einstein, enlighten me. I tend to keep an open mind. Funny thing is, on a cycling board they call me delusional for arguing on behalf of the 2nd Amendment. Don't tell me this board is like the hunting board I go to where they run everybody off that has anything to say that isn't pursuant to the right wing party line. That would actually be sad.

So, go ahead. Show me where I am wrong (i.e., delusional) and please use statistics if possible. Studies would work too. I promise not to call you names if I think what you set forth is incorrect. I'll just point out the holes.

Look, I do not know it all, but what I do now is that nearly every time the government has engaged in excessive regulation that illegal trade becomes an issue.

When I refer to delusion, I am specifically stating that despite increasing legislation to stem violence, we have not seen any significant reduction in violence. This phenomenon extends into illegal drugs as well, we continue to attempt to fight a losing war on drugs. Even with something as sensible as drinking and driving behaviors. Drunk drivers face the harshest sentences in history, yet still drive drunk on the roads.

The idea that UCB will reduce these horrible and tragic shootings is inane. It won't. When one of these people gets it in their heads that they are going to take out a whole bunch of people, they find a way to do it. It's not the method that they use, but rather the fact that they have chosen to engage in horrible acts against others that is the problem.

I seriously mean no disrespect, but background checks are a feel good measure, that like the TSA accomplish little, yet require us to sacrifice our freedoms in the name of "safety".

(PS - I will eventually go look up all the cites, I don't have them handy here and I am recovering from surgery, so feeling a bit lazy from an intellectual standpoint,I have little fear of following the data.)

 

[fabsroman]

Sure, few but high profile incidents. Where do you think the machine guns in the North Hollywood BOFA shootout came from?

Make it more difficult for felons to "buy" a gun and felons will turn to other means to acquire them. Right now, it's relatively easy to purchase FTF even for a prohibited person. What happens when you make that more difficult?

Where do drug users buy their drugs?



You cannot catch straw purchasers because that's not the real problem. Most crime guns are acquired either legitimately, through face to face purchases, by theft, or illegal sales and in pretty much that order.

You will only succeed in moving the problem of questionable FTF purchases to theft or illegal sales. What keeps people honest about income tax reporting is that there is a huge machine in place to provide the IRS with data. Tell me the last stripper/waitress/cash worker/drug dealer you know who was honest on their taxes? You live in a fantasy world, if you believe that people don't cheat on their taxes in those professions.




It's a matter of desire plus the availability of materials. Do you really believe what you are saying... that by regulating fertilizer sales we are all much safer. Let me provide you with a much better example. because not a lot of people want to blow up buildings,but a lot of people want to get high.

How has this plan worked for Methamphetamine? Dooh, that's right, we still have an epic meth problem in this country despite restrictions on all sorts of precursor chemicals.



You're right, because it gives people a false sense of security. If you really believe that these regulations stop these crimes from happening, I don't think I will convince you not to surrender your freedoms.



You assume that A) she would have obeyed the law, and that B) He would have not been able to get a gun through other means. The problem lies in that he would have been able to get a firearm should he have wanted one. He was not a prohibited person.



Look the parents of these murdered children have my sincere sympathy, I feel horrible for what has happened to them. They are not responsible for the deaths of their children, Adam Lanza is. Unfortunately, he's dead and cannot answer for his crimes. That doesn't mean that these parents or anyone else gain the right to deny me my right to freedom, liberty, or self-defense as a result of Adam Lanza's actions.



It really is a sad time we live in. Society seems focused on sacrificing freedom for the illusion of security. Yet, this is a sociological problem and not a gun problem.

Despite enacting increasingly restrictive laws and removing freedoms, the horrors seem to continuously exceed that of previous horrible acts. This is directly attributable to a decay in society and not to inadequacy of legislation.



Do a search, you have internet access. I assure you, that it's not as hard as you might think. How hard do you think it would be to build a full auto Sten gun in 9mm?

Mark

Ah, the good old "regulations" don't stop crime. Really? So, if we got rid of all laws, there wouldn't be more murders, more violent crime, more nefarious activity (note I did not say illegal because nothing would be illegal). In fact, if we got rid of ALL regulation, this country would run like a well oiled machine. What regulations do is provide risk to committing nefarious acts. Of course, if the chance of getting audited is .00000000000001%, more people would be willing to take the risk versus an audit probability of 95%.

How many full auto Sten guns in 9mm do you hear about being used in crimes or recovered from crimes. Your post is the first time I have heard about the process. Could it be because building one is illegal, or because it would actually require some effort/capital. I can build a canon with some steel and a welder, but the welder costs $2,000, I need to learn how to weld, and I need to find plans, gunpowder, etc. Much easier to just go buy an AR-15. If Lanza or any of these other lunatics could have built a bomb and killed more people than they did, they probably would have.

You even admit that most crime guns are purchased FTF and that requiring a background check would force criminals to get them through other means (e.g., theft). Good, that ups the risk factor for them. In a FTF from granny at the yard sale, there is no risk of being shot. Heck, there isn't even a risk of an undercover agent at that point because it is not illegal right now. Make it illegal to purchase a firearm without having a background check done, setup some stings, and then we can see what effect it has on crime.

How would background checks for everybody purchasing a firearm impede anybodies 2nd Amendment Right. If you are not a prohibited person, you get to buy a firearm whether from a retailer or FTF. If you are a prohibited person, you don't. Nobody is stepping on any 2nd Amendment Rights by requiring a background check for ALL sales. Heck, I am largely surprised that the Maryland General Assembly didn't put that in SB281. Background checks are already required in Maryland for ALL regulated firearms, albeit a background check akin to getting an enema or worse. If they were doing those Form 77R checks timely, there could be no argument that they are impeding your 2nd Amendment Right. Why does a person buying a new gun from a retailer have to go through a background check while somebody buying a used one from his neighbor does not?

Yeah, I will admit that the war on drugs is a losing battle because drugs are ADDICTIVE. Not too many people have a physical addiction to firearms.

The only question I have for you is:

Would you advocate getting rid of ALL background checks for firearms and/or explosives(e.g., doing away with NICS)?

As far as me living in a fantasy world, you might as well call me delusional again. Pretty much has the same effect.

What I do know is that the tax gap, for whatever reason, is around $340 billion a year. That is the difference between what taxpayers should be paying and what they are paying. Whether it be from psychiatrists cooking their books, overstating expenses, and understating income; or strippers, employees getting paid under the table, law enforcement officers and politicians taking bribes they do not report, prostitutes not reporting their income, drug dealers not reporting all their income, grannies selling firearms for a capital gain at a yard sale and not reporting it, I will leave you to speculate on the exact cause.

Psychiatrist pleads guilty to tax evasion charge:

http://www.tax.ny.gov/press/rel/2010/wohltmann062810.htm

Montreal (Wrong Country) Psychiatrist gets fined $88K for tax evasion:

http://features.rr.com/article/01Ru9wFftp0fA

If you think tax evasion only applies to certain professions, you live in a fantasy world. Guess we should get rid of the income tax code too.

 

[fabsroman]

Look, I do not know it all, but what I do now is that nearly every time the government has engaged in excessive regulation that illegal trade becomes an issue.

When I refer to delusion, I am specifically stating that despite increasing legislation to stem violence, we have not seen any significant reduction in violence. This phenomenon extends into illegal drugs as well, we continue to attempt to fight a losing war on drugs. Even with something as sensible as drinking and driving behaviors. Drunk drivers face the harshest sentences in history, yet still drive drunk on the roads.

The idea that UCB will reduce these horrible and tragic shootings is inane. It won't. When one of these people gets it in their heads that they are going to take out a whole bunch of people, they find a way to do it. It's not the method that they use, but rather the fact that they have chosen to engage in horrible acts against others that is the problem.

I seriously mean no disrespect, but background checks are a feel good measure, that like the TSA accomplish little, yet require us to sacrifice our freedoms in the name of "safety".

(PS - I will eventually go look up all the cites, I don't have them handy here and I am recovering from surgery, so feeling a bit lazy from an intellectual standpoint,I have little fear of following the data.)

Alright, keeping this to an adult debate versus name calling is a start.

I will agree that the war on drugs is a disaster because there are too many poor, uneducated people in the inner cities that can make a ton of money by selling illegal drugs to the poor souls that are physically hooked on them. I just don't see the trade of illegal firearms to be that out of control because criminals and the couple other prohibited people on the list would be the only ones that could not get them legally. Guns themselves are not outlawed, so comparing them to the illicit drug trade isn't apples to apples.

Would a criminal be able to still get a firearm if he really, really wants one. Most likely. Would it take more effort than buying one from granny at a yard sale? Yep. I understand that with enough will, one can almost always find a way. The question is, how much will does a person have, and would requiring a background check on all firearms create a barrier that some people's will would not be able to overcome.

Also, most of the lunatics that have done mass shootings bought their firearms legally, some after seeing a psychiatrist that thought they were a problem (e.g., Virginia Tech, Aurora, maybe even Newtown).

As far as DUI laws are concerned, they are actually pretty lax. I have gotten a 2 time offender a suspended sentence plenty of times. Granted, they end up with a guilty on their record, but no jail time and hardly any fine. They do have to jump through some hoops to get their license back, but it really isn't that bad. Plus, the maximum sentence in Maryland is 1 year even on your 10th DUI. Do a search on Habitual Drunkard in this forum and you will find a thread I started about it. It went off on a tangent. If you read through that thread, I think you will see that I have no desire to prevent people from owning firearms that are not prohibited people. No intent whatsoever. I just want to make it as hard as possible for a prohibited person to ever own a firearm.

Hope the surgery went well and that you recover quickly.

 

[Markp]

If you think tax evasion only applies to certain professions, you live in a fantasy world. Guess we should get rid of the income tax code too.

Well getting rid of the tax code would get rid of the National Firearms Act.

Let's talk income tax for a second, income is far from the only food our government consumes. Before income tax the federal government ran just fine for over 100 years. Income tax is just one revenue stream that our government enjoys. If I had as many revenue streams as the US government, I would make Bill Gates look like an amateur businessman.

We could go off on tangent after tangent about all of this stuff. I personally am not so offended by the idea that the government wants to prevent the criminal and the insane from procuring weapons. I believe that criminals (e.g. those who should be in jail) should not have firearms because they broke the social contract in which their freedoms are predicated on. However, once their sentence is completed, they should have their rights restored, otherwise they should still be in jail or on parole (serving the remainder of their sentence under supervision outside of jail without legal access to all their rights).

I see this as a problem of punishment, not of seeking permission, the persons responsible for crime (and violent firearm crime in particular) are often not held accountable for their crimes, with our prisons ineffective at reforming those who enter and serving as graduate education in criminal enterprise. Piling on more surveillance, restrictions, and paperwork does little but create a cottage industry for those who provide the surveillance, enforce the laws, and complete the paperwork all while inconveniencing the "law abiding citizen". Sometimes it catches the bad guy in the dragnet approach, but it's extremely inefficient and it infringes on the rights of those who least deserve to be inconvenienced by their government. It is also one of the reasons we ended up in a depression recently, the enacting of the PATRIOT Act and the TSA, we put a giant brake on the economy and slowed down commerce everywhere.

Government does have a place and a purpose, but to serve as our nanny is not the role I think that serves us best. It is not the job of the government to reduce my exposure to risk to zero. This is not to say that Government does not play an important role in public health, it does and it should, but providing cradle to grave health care is going to far. In the case of firearms and crime, I do believe the role of the government to punish those who have broken the social contract and ensure that those who have committed serious crimes are charged, tried, and if convicted, sentenced to an appropriate punishment/term of incarceration which they ACTUALLY serve.

If we simply punished (with any consistency) those who actually used firearms in crime, and punished them severely, they would no longer be in a position to commit crimes of violence. I realize that this is fantasy, as our justice system is so broken that it's amazing it works at all.

I just don't see background checks as the panacea that will fix the problems we are facing with violence in this country. We have a societal problem, where these acts of violence are endorsed by the culture and its media.

Mark

PS - Yes, the psychiatrist took a plea bargain, because rather than prosecute the person for the actual crime they committed (Felony tax nonpayment) she was given the opportunity to take a deal (Misdemeanor count of failing to pay tax) that would allow her to continue to feed her government masters for years to come, her sentence of 96 hours community service ensures that the revenue stream will continue uninterrupted. BTW, she wasn't cheating on her taxes, she simply didn't file them at all!

 

[Traveler]

Thing that bugs me is that they are calling this "common sense" instead of "gun control". Well, as soon as you hear common sense nowadays, you know something is bad. Let's call a spade a spade, this is gun control.

Nope. Guns are inanimate objects. Call this what it is. People control.

 

[Dogabutila]

So you're basically making that "if it prevents even ONE (insert bad thing)" from happening it's worth the infringement of rights argument?

 

[Markp]

Yes, there will always be somebody that can get around it. However, how many bombs have we seen built after Oklahoma?

Based upon your logic, we shouldn't even have a NICS check for new gun sales and everybody should be able to buy as much gunpowder, fertilizer, diesel fuel, etc. because we will never be able to stop them all. Thing is, what if we stop 3,000 for every 1 that gets through because of the new law, versus 1,000 for every 1 that gets through? Sadly, we don't have enough people confessing to wanting to shoot up an elementary school, but being thwarted by one means or another.

Do you really believe we stopped thousands of others who were serious about placing a bomb in a major metro area? The attack in Boston today just proves how simple it was for someone to place multiple bombs in one very high profile location and blow it up.

We're not stopping people from violence with silly laws on background checks. Seriously, how many people are living in this country undocumented? How many people can and do circumvent the "protections" we have in place? How many more acts of violence in the face of an overly intrusive government do we need to witness before we realize that Government cannot protect us from harm?

This is precisely why I am loathe to give up my freedom in the name of false security. We'll see how the Boston attack shakes out, but right now, it reinforces my belief that all the background checks in the world will not prevent acts of violence by persons aptly motivated to engage in such acts. What was the reaction of our government today? Put DC metro on "high alert" no doubt with bag searches, Restrict traffic access around the White House, in NYC they flood the streets with cops and begin random bag searches on the subway/streets! I feel safer already, someone might want to let them know they are a day late and a dollar short to protect us.

Mark

 

[Dogabutila]

Still wanna make that "how many bombs since Oklahoma" argument?

 

[chupacabra]

FTF between criminal gun runner with a rap sheet to criminal gang member with a rap sheet needs to be distinguished from FTF between the yard sale grandmom or one of my law abiding relatives or any other responsible law abiding person. The criminals are not going to state police or anyone for a background check regardless if the law tells them to or not, thats why it's called the black market.