Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem

Oct 23, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Media Matters for America

The National Rifle Association's media arm, NRA News, recently downplayed the public safety threat posed by a loophole in federal law that allows domestic abusers and other prohibited persons to purchase firearms without undergoing a background check.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 8 of8

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 23, 2012
 
When are people going to learn? It doesn't matter what the laws are, criminals are going to break them.

Do you really think a background check on private gun sales would have stopped this guy?

1. There is a law against domestic abuse. This guy broke it.

2. There is a law requiring him to turn in his weapons after conviction on #1. This guy broke it.

3. There is a law preventing him from coming within 500 feet of his wife, after she filed a restraining order. This guy broke it.

4. There is a law against murder. This guy broke it repeatedly.

5. There is a law against discharging a firearm in city limits or public. This guy broke it.

6. There is a law against stalking. This guy broke it.

7. There is a law against him acquiring another weapon after conviction on #1. This guy broke it.

So sure, make your case for infringing our second amendment rights further. The only ones restricted, are the law abiding.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 23, 2012
 
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
When are people going to learn? It doesn't matter what the laws are, criminals are going to break them.
Do you really think a background check on private gun sales would have stopped this guy?
1. There is a law against domestic abuse. This guy broke it.
2. There is a law requiring him to turn in his weapons after conviction on #1. This guy broke it.
3. There is a law preventing him from coming within 500 feet of his wife, after she filed a restraining order. This guy broke it.
4. There is a law against murder. This guy broke it repeatedly.
5. There is a law against discharging a firearm in city limits or public. This guy broke it.
6. There is a law against stalking. This guy broke it.
7. There is a law against him acquiring another weapon after conviction on #1. This guy broke it.
So sure, make your case for infringing our second amendment rights further. The only ones restricted, are the law abiding.
Well said!! However you can't fix stupid or politicians which are one and the same. The guy would have gotten a weapon somehow and did....
Henry Kissinger

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

So the words responsibility and accountability are just not a part of your world views?
Besara

Des Moines, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 23, 2012
 
Henry Kissinger wrote:
So the words responsibility and accountability are just not a part of your world views?
So the words responsibility and accountability are just not a part of your world views? Just big government solutions. Just like the Final Solution that makes you giddy thinking about it.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 23, 2012
 
Henry Kissinger wrote:
So the words responsibility and accountability are just not a part of your world views?
Explain your statement.
Are you implying that this guy's actions are the responsibility of law abiding citizens? Are the law abiding accountable for this guy's actions?
Are more laws going to force people to be responsible or accountable? The judge MIGHT hold criminals accountable, but can't force responsibility upon them.
What do world views have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you a UN Small Arms Treaty supporter?
Henry Kissinger

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 23, 2012
 
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain your statement.
Are you implying that this guy's actions are the responsibility of law abiding citizens? Are the law abiding accountable for this guy's actions?
Are more laws going to force people to be responsible or accountable? The judge MIGHT hold criminals accountable, but can't force responsibility upon them.
What do world views have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you a UN Small Arms Treaty supporter?
Go stuff yourself, gun nut. If you can't read English it's because of your 3rd grade education.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Lake Charles, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 23, 2012
 
Henry Kissinger wrote:
<quoted text>Go stuff yourself, gun nut. If you can't read English it's because of your 3rd grade education.
Ok tough/smart guy. Message me so we can meet face to face. You can feel free to say anything that comes to mind then.
While we are at it, we can take an IQ test side by side to see who has the third grade education you cowardly piece of shit.
I'll be waiting.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 24, 2012
 
Domestic abusers don't need a gun to beath their wives to death, but we the people need them to beat the govt if it goes rogue.

Obama and the police want gun control to make it easy for them to kill the Resistors. Obama and most cops are communists.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 8 of8
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••