“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#21 Apr 23, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
No Kidding......
And how does the local gun store owner know they've been busted when you patriots refuse to agree to background checks?
All states should and could have uniform gun ownership laws. There's no reason it couldn't happen, however...then comes the dreaded government agency that's going to cost money (taxes) to support and maintain.
Rob

United States

#22 Apr 23, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>No Kidding......

And how does the local gun store owner know they've been busted when you patriots refuse to agree to background checks?
The store owner is not the one to take the guns. The post was about people that had guns and THEN were busted for intoxication or having drugs. You really do lack reading and comprehension skills.
Why don't you explain how a background check is going to stop a killer that will not get a background check? Here is your big chance to shine.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#23 Apr 23, 2013
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! Are you that dumb? Never mind. I'll help you. Cut my whole first post. Paste it in your search box and then hit enter. Click on one if those links. If you need help cut and pasting you will have to look it up. By the way we don't need any proof alcohol and drugs don't mix with firearms and you have poor reading and comprehension skills Jason. He said "probably". As I've said many times Jason, just stick to pole dancing
I don't think you know how to post a link to support your claims.
Why else would you be so defensive when someone asks you for one?
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#24 Apr 23, 2013
StSteve wrote:
Same should go for those caught holding while intoxicated or target shooting while drinking.
I'm good with that.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#25 Apr 23, 2013
Bob wrote:
And how does the local gun store owner know they've been busted when you patriots refuse to agree to background checks?
We already have background checks. Go lick a few more bus windows and let the adults have a conversation here.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#26 Apr 23, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
We already have background checks. Go lick a few more bus windows and let the adults have a conversation here.
Not in Virginia...anyone can go to a gun show and buy anything they want with no background check.
Gun purchase/ownership laws are not consistant. There's no good reason not to change that other than the government agency that will need to be created and all the tax money to run it.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#27 Apr 23, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
Not in Virginia...anyone can go to a gun show and buy anything they want with no background check.
So you're saying that Virginia has no background checks at all?

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#28 Apr 23, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that Virginia has no background checks at all?
At a gun store...yes...I recently purchased one.
At a gun show...no...
Virginia is also pretty easy on open-carry although it's not as prevelent as one might think.
Elmer

Hudsonville, MI

#29 Apr 23, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
At a gun store...yes...I recently purchased one.
At a gun show...no...
Virginia is also pretty easy on open-carry although it's not as prevelent as one might think.
Do they allow rabbits to be shot in Virginia, Mr. Wiggily?

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#30 Apr 23, 2013
Elmer wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they allow rabbits to be shot in Virginia, Mr. Wiggily?
Don't know...havn't explored the hunting seasons and offereings in Virginia...why??
Phil

Oxford, MI

#31 Apr 23, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>At a gun store...yes...I recently purchased one.
At a gun show...no...
Virginia is also pretty easy on open-carry although it's not as prevelent as one might think.
Michigan is also a open carry state
Phil

Oxford, MI

#32 Apr 23, 2013
Is anybody gonna get to the heart of the matter? This is a good question Rob asked.
Why don't you explain how a background check is going to stop a killer that will not get a background check? Here is your big chance to shine.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#33 Apr 23, 2013
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't every killer and criminal law breaker obey the law? Why would you ask such a dumb question?
It was sarcasm Rob.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#34 Apr 23, 2013
Phil wrote:
Is anybody gonna get to the heart of the matter? This is a good question Rob asked.
Why don't you explain how a background check is going to stop a killer that will not get a background check? Here is your big chance to shine.
Well said, more background checks are not the answer. We already has those. One reason I think Obama's federal background check bill failed was because of a lack of funding, he has no plan on how to pay for it.
It's all about politics,.... next time there is a mass shooting, they can just throw their hands up in the air,.. and blame congress for not passing the bill, which woulnt have made any difference anyway!
Case in point, the state of Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but that did'nt stop Adam Lanza from getting his hands on the guns he used at Sany Hook.
Most law abiding citizens dont mind going through a background check. But they are not the ones using gun's to commit crimes.
Here is a good case in point, there is no way that the person in this article went through a background check, and obtained his gun legally.
http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_cou...
"Vandermolen, now free on bond, has a long criminal record. The couple had previously filed two personal protection orders against him".
How did this crazy person get a gun? I doubt it was through any background check.
Rob

United States

#35 Apr 23, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>It was sarcasm Rob.
I know, I saw the smiley face. I was adding to the sarcasm by saying that if the other side was right then of course law breakers would be getting background checks while getting there weapons legally. I noticed nobody will answer the question. Here it is again. How will a background check stop a killer that will not get a background check? Here is somebody's big chance to shine. Nobody will answer, all they want to do is complain about background checks because that's what these sheepeole were told to do.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#36 Apr 24, 2013
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
The store owner is not the one to take the guns. The post was about people that had guns and THEN were busted for intoxication or having drugs. You really do lack reading and comprehension skills.
Why don't you explain how a background check is going to stop a killer that will not get a background check? Here is your big chance to shine.
I'm sorry, I forgot who I was replying to.

I should have mentioned the obvious that the offender would be free to purchase new guns once your facists had confiscated the first ones.

As far as the background checks goes, it's lunatics like yourself that say they don't work and are an infringement on your constitutional rights. Perhaps you should explain how the authorities in your utopia would even know who owned a gun to confiscate, or why they would even have the right to take them away to begin with.

Why is it that it is always the rabid constitutionalist that want to make sure that this document's protections are only available to some?
Sassy

Grand Rapids, MI

#37 Apr 24, 2013
With regards to the VanderMolen case here in Grand Rapids, I'm not sure it has been determined how he obtained the gun. There was no mention in the article as to if the long criminal pertains to misdemeanors of felonies.
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>Well said, more background checks are not the answer. We already has those. One reason I think Obama's federal background check bill failed was because of a lack of funding, he has no plan on how to pay for it.
It's all about politics,.... next time there is a mass shooting, they can just throw their hands up in the air,.. and blame congress for not passing the bill, which woulnt have made any difference anyway!
Case in point, the state of Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but that did'nt stop Adam Lanza from getting his hands on the guns he used at Sany Hook.
Most law abiding citizens dont mind going through a background check. But they are not the ones using gun's to commit crimes.
Here is a good case in point, there is no way that the person in this article went through a background check, and obtained his gun legally.
http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_cou...
"Vandermolen, now free on bond, has a long criminal record. The couple had previously filed two personal protection orders against him".
How did this crazy person get a gun? I doubt it was through any background check.
COP

Grand Rapids, MI

#38 Apr 24, 2013
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, I saw the smiley face. I was adding to the sarcasm by saying that if the other side was right then of course law breakers would be getting background checks while getting there weapons legally. I noticed nobody will answer the question. Here it is again. How will a background check stop a killer that will not get a background check? Here is somebody's big chance to shine. Nobody will answer, all they want to do is complain about background checks because that's what these sheepeole were told to do.
Background checks will not stop every mass gun murder, that's not the point. If we based every law of ours on the fact that it must stop 100% of the crimes it intended to stop or we shouldn't enact it, then we would be living in a completely lawless country.

Some guy beats up his girlfriend and is arrested, charged and then she leaves him. He decides to go after her and shoot her but doesn't have a gun so he goes to a licensed dealer and is rejected. Now the subject is forced into the black market to get his gun where there is the potential he will try buying from a stranger, undercover agent or from someone the law has their eyes on. The likelyhood of pulling off his mission are reduced. That's the point of laws.

His other option? Getting a gun from a brother or friend and carrying out his violent act. With our current laws, if that happens the brother or friend cannot be charged as long as they claim the gun was a gift, even if they new of his history of spousal abuse.

Background checks will only work if we close other loopholes such as gifting. The facts are guns are way too easy to get. Background checks wouldn't stop every gun murder but if it stops 2%-5% or more then it is considered a success in the world of law enforcement.
Rob

United States

#39 Apr 24, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry, I forgot who I was replying to.

I should have mentioned the obvious that the offender would be free to purchase new guns once your facists had confiscated the first ones.

As far as the background checks goes, it's lunatics like yourself that say they don't work and are an infringement on your constitutional rights. Perhaps you should explain how the authorities in your utopia would even know who owned a gun to confiscate, or why they would even have the right to take them away to begin with.

Why is it that it is always the rabid constitutionalist that want to make sure that this document's protections are only available to some?
Here it is again.
" How will a background check stop a killer that will not get a background check? Here is somebody's big chance to shine. Nobody will answer, all they want to do is complain about background checks because that's what these sheepeole were told to do."

This is the best answer you could come up with?

"As far as the background checks goes, it's lunatics like yourself that say they don't work and are an infringement on your constitutional rights."

So you answer is, they work because people like me say they don't?

I think you should go smoke another one pothead. Please turn in any guns you have because it is clear you have no common sense.
Rob

United States

#40 Apr 24, 2013
COP wrote:
<quoted text>Background checks will not stop every mass gun murder, that's not the point. If we based every law of ours on the fact that it must stop 100% of the crimes it intended to stop or we shouldn't enact it, then we would be living in a completely lawless country.

Some guy beats up his girlfriend and is arrested, charged and then she leaves him. He decides to go after her and shoot her but doesn't have a gun so he goes to a licensed dealer and is rejected. Now the subject is forced into the black market to get his gun where there is the potential he will try buying from a stranger, undercover agent or from someone the law has their eyes on. The likelyhood of pulling off his mission are reduced. That's the point of laws.

His other option? Getting a gun from a brother or friend and carrying out his violent act. With our current laws, if that happens the brother or friend cannot be charged as long as they claim the gun was a gift, even if they new of his history of spousal abuse.

Background checks will only work if we close other loopholes such as gifting. The facts are guns are way too easy to get. Background checks wouldn't stop every gun murder but if it stops 2%-5% or more then it is considered a success in the world of law enforcement.
And we would have no freedom if we passed laws on emotions or because of the actions of each crazy person out there. Guns serve good purposes too, you just choose to overlook that. I refer back to my question when you refer to a loophole and fixing the problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jesus Steals Christmas Back From Satan 53 min Cujo 15
Grand Rapids; a good place to live? (Mar '12) 12 hr elenaounis 186
Mana s arrest is linked to deadly barbershop sh... 15 hr Gville Jim 2
Al Sharpton's Marchers in New York City Chant "... 15 hr Gville Jim 16
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 22 hr Go Blue Forever 1,494
pope-a-dope Sat Really 3
welcome to the new black america Sat Really 6
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:54 am PST

ESPN 6:54AM
Bears fire GM, sources say; Trestman too?
NFL 6:58 AM
Chicago Bears fire Marc Trestman
Bleacher Report 7:23 AM
Bears Right to Clean House; Breaking Down Next Steps
ESPN 7:25 AM
Sources: Bears fire both Emery, Trestman
Yahoo! Sports 7:28 AM
Bills quarterback Orton retires