Originally Posted By: fathersson
Whoa, before you go off in another direction. Do you now understand that I was NOT talking about you or your family. Do you ackowledge this?

Did you go back and read about what we have already said about Background checks or are you just demanding to be heard and want people to jump to your questions? I post say: May 1st 2:19 PM why not.. Why not check that post out and others peoples thoughts.

Why do you worry so much and make so many comments about how people post vs. what their posts points are?
Why not just make your point clear instead of attacking a persons post pattern. It is quite noticable that you have had some education with your terms about the way people post. Good for you, but it doesn't help your point and comes across as an attack.

Facts, it is facts what will make your point. And I say POINT not argument because that sounds mad

Now back to your last post. Your Sandy Hook shooter would not have been stopped by a Backgrond Check, How could he. He didn't have a License, he didn't own a gun. And as pointed out before he stole his weapons. Just the way most criminals get theirs.

Backgrounds checks are done on the individual person applying for a weapon or license. Should "hard core" mental person get a license or permit- NO

He stole his mother's weapons- a major mistake made on her part for not keeping them safely away. But as I have said before she paid with her life for making those mistakes.

And I will make this statement. I don't want new laws made on someone FEELINGS. OR "if it would save on person concept."

People have to stop trying to solve these problems by taking good peoples rights away as an easy answer to a tuff problem no matter what their feeling are. And the worst happens when the ones who whine the most don't have any skin in the game so they don't care to give others rights away. It is that simple.

The real laugh are those who think we have to "GIVE" reasons to own and have guns.



You know what, forget about that. Next time I wouldn't tell you that the way you worded your argument is screwed up, I just do the same thing I did in my last post. It's not a noble thing to do, but I'm not beyond that obviously.

As for your argument, yeah, this may not stop mass murderers in many of those mass shootings. It wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook. It wouldn't have stopped Aurora. It wouldn't have stopped Columbine. For those situations, the part of that bill concerning magazine sizes must have stayed intact, which it didn't unfortunately. That would have made a lot of difference.

However, background checks would make it harder for people with records to get guns, which would ultimately reduce the number of gun deaths. FF made it clear that many places already do background checks. So it wouldn't affect them, it would only enforce that in places that there has not been mandatory background checks. So again, why are you against that?

"Fire cannot kill a dragon." -Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones