If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
He should redirect his anger and realize none of the cap he's proposing would stop a determined individual
As someone who recently lost a family member, I understand his grief and looking for answers to rationalize his loss. However as others have mentioned, nothing he proposed would have stopped the murder of his daughter and cameraman. What would have stopped this was a POTUS with a back bone to condemn racial tension instead of encouraging it. The gunman even has declared why he did it, had racial tensions been diffused last year, not of this would be happening.
He lost my sympathy the moment he stood atop his daughter's still warm corpse and proclaimed himself the new champion of gun control. It's not about reducing crime or keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. The Progressive's end game is the removal of every single firearm in America, no matter what they tell you. Never forget that.
Talk to me about these so-called "loopholes."
I thought (correct me if I'm wrong), that when the Brady Bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) was being discussed (before being passed), that this area was specifically carved out.
"Firearm transfers by unlicensed private sellers that are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms are not subject to the Brady Act, but may be covered under other federal, state, and local restrictions."
It's not a "loophole" that someone "forgot." It was specifically put in that way, ON PURPOSE. Else the bill never would have passed.
Surely Senator Schumer would recall this little detail, since it was his bill (twice).
The background checks are ONLY required to be conducted by FFL's:
'... it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless..."
These specific words were put in the bill ON PURPOSE.
How can we remind the gun grabbers that this (private party sales) wasn't something that was forgotten to be included.
Talk to me about these so-called "loopholes."
I thought (correct me if I'm wrong), that when the Brady Bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) was being discussed (before being passed), that this area was specifically carved out.
"Firearm transfers by unlicensed private sellers that are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms are not subject to the Brady Act, but may be covered under other federal, state, and local restrictions."
It's not a "loophole" that someone "forgot." It was specifically put in that way, ON PURPOSE. Else the bill never would have passed.
Surely Senator Schumer would recall this little detail, since it was his bill (twice).
The background checks are ONLY required to be conducted by FFL's:
'... it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an individual who is not licensed under section 923, unless..."
These specific words were put in the bill ON PURPOSE.
How can we remind the gun grabbers that this (private party sales) wasn't something that was forgotten to be included.