Gun buy back turns into gun show

[Teddy B 17,252]

Adam Lanza was a court ruling away from being committed to a psychiatric facility. Yes, he could have passed a background check. And that right there is part of the problem. The dude was nutso but still good enough to go and buy firearms. No wonder we have that many murders and mass murders in this country.

The fact that this has to be explained over and over makes me think that along with background checks which include mental stability, we also need IQ tests before giving someone a gun.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you wanna pay attention to detail go to the root cause of the problem.

That nutcases can easily and often legally acquire firearms? We are paying attention to that and would like to see that changed. When you have guns sold on the side of the street without any scrutiny on the buyer and seller whatsoever, then that is the perfect venue for anyone to go get theirs. Criminals, sickos, the outright delusional - doesn't matter. Guns for all.

[Karee 4,190]

It seems that you have fallen for another piece of misinformation. The Connecticut state police is very clear on what weapons were used. They have updated their information on 18 Jan - three days after the misinformation you link to was spread - to clear up said misinformation.

Yes, he could have and that is scary as hell. That nutcases that are about to be comitted to mental institutions can legally acquire firearms. You don't see anything wrong with that picture?

Yes I see something wrong with it. My problem is this: They are going after gun shows and wanting backround checks due to this Newtown tragedy, when in reality neither had anything to do with it. It's like asking for more seatbelt enforcement in automobiles due to a plane crash. Yes it is a good idea, but using the the plane crash as the excuse seems a little off base.

[Khal_Drogo 50]

Just to clear things up, Adam Lanza could NOT have passed a background check. How do I know? Because he tried to buy a gun legally, was DENIED, and resorted to stealing his mother's instead.

[Karee 4,190]

Just to clear things up, Adam Lanza could NOT have passed a background check. How do I know? Because he tried to buy a gun legally, was DENIED, and resorted to stealing his mother's instead.

Source?

[Khal_Drogo 50]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/15/nation/la-na-nn-sandy-hook-gunman-tried-to-buy-rifile-days-before-20121215

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249781/Connecticut-store-Sandy-Hook-gunman-Adam-Lanza-tried-buy-rifle-huge-sale-ammunition.html

http://www.pressherald.com/news/adam-lanza-attempted-failed-to-purchase-his-own-gun-sources-say_2012-12-16.html

And about a billion more lol.

[Harsh_77 718]

That nutcases can easily and often legally acquire firearms? We are paying attention to that and would like to see that changed. When you have guns sold on the side of the street without any scrutiny on the buyer and seller whatsoever, then that is the perfect venue for anyone to go get theirs. Criminals, sickos, the outright delusional - doesn't matter. Guns for all.

Most gun owners never had problem with the background check and even the extensive background check which includes any mental disability.

The gun owners have problem when the govt wants the weapon to be registered and when they come out with the ban on certain style of weapon just coz thats what they want.

Biden does not even know limiting the size of mag would do anything and thats his own words.

Obama wants to ban assualt rifle based on it was used to kill innocent children, well it seem the assualt rifle was never used in the sandy hook.

Gun owners are against such impositions, background check should be readily available without undue hardship to seller and buyer.

[Karee 4,190]

http://articles.lati...before-20121215

http://www.dailymail...ammunition.html

http://www.presshera...2012-12-16.html

And about a billion more lol.

You might want to read your links before you post them. All of those links refer to him not wanting to wait 14 days for the backround check. Says nothing at all about him passing or failing the background check.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Gun owners are against such impositions, background check should be readily available without undue hardship to seller and buyer.

Why would legal, responsible gun owners be against extensive background checks?

There's "undue hardship" on the buyer when trying to purchase Sudafed over the counter at the pharmacy.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/15/nation/la-na-nn-sandy-hook-gunman-tried-to-buy-rifile-days-before-20121215

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249781/Connecticut-store-Sandy-Hook-gunman-Adam-Lanza-tried-buy-rifle-huge-sale-ammunition.html

http://www.pressherald.com/news/adam-lanza-attempted-failed-to-purchase-his-own-gun-sources-say_2012-12-16.html

And about a billion more lol.

These don't say anything about him attempting to get a background check and being denied.

[Harsh_77 718]

Why would legal, responsible gun owners be against extensive background checks?

There's "undue hardship" on the buyer when trying to purchase Sudafed over the counter at the pharmacy.

These don't say anything about him attempting to get a background check and being denied.

Again you only take couple lines from my whole response but I will say it again for you.

Legal Gun owners are against the national registry, against the size of the magazine and are against the ban on assault rifle.

Getting an Id to vote is undue hardship and ppl should not have to go thru undue hardship.

Geez I wonder how those voters buy their Sudafed.

You are ok if legit gun owner has to go thru undue hardship but you are not ok when voter has to get a simple State Id.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Again you only take couple lines from my whole response but I will say it again for you.

Legal Gun owners are against the national registry, against the size of the magazine and are against the ban on assault rifle.

Getting an Id to vote is undue hardship and ppl should not have to go thru undue hardship.

Geez I wonder how those voters buy their Sudafed.

You are ok if legit gun owner has to go thru undue hardship but you are not ok when voter has to get a simple State Id.

What? Who said I'm against voters having identification?

[Karee 4,190]

Again you only take couple lines from my whole response but I will say it again for you.

Legal Gun owners are against the national registry, against the size of the magazine and are against the ban on assault rifle.

Getting an Id to vote is undue hardship and ppl should not have to go thru undue hardship.

Geez I wonder how those voters buy their Sudafed.

You are ok if legit gun owner has to go thru undue hardship but you are not ok when voter has to get a simple State Id.

I think I see what he is trying to say. Let me attempt a translation.

Why is it considered an undue hardsip to show ID to excerise your right to vote, but not considered an undue hardship when you want to purchase a firearm?

I think that's it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Just to clear things up, Adam Lanza could NOT have passed a background check. How do I know? Because he tried to buy a gun legally, was DENIED, and resorted to stealing his mother's instead.

So going back to the OP, Adam Lanza could have acquired any number of firearms there on the side of the street - or at any gun show or over the internet in a private transaction - without ever having to subject himself to a background check. Why are these type venues that facilitate transactions providing ineligible persons access to firearms a good idea again?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I think I see what he is trying to say. Let me attempt a translation.

Why is it considered an undue hardsip to show ID to excerise your right to vote, but not considered an undue hardship when you want to purchase a firearm?

I think that's it.

I don't consider having an ID undue hardship. You need an ID to do nearly anything these days. I learned that when I moved here and the only ID I had was my Canadian driver's license, and until I got something else, I couldn't do jack sh*t.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Evylin

[Karee 4,190]

I don't consider having an ID undue hardship. You need an ID to do nearly anything these days. I learned that when I moved here and the only ID I had was my Canadian driver's license, and until I got something else, I couldn't do jack sh*t.

How about voting? Do you think you should have to show an ID to vote?