freyasman
Senator
"Waiting until someone actually kills a bunch of people before we do something about it is a little late for those who are dead, don't ya think?"
California shooter: Out on bail 9 months awaiting trial on murder charges
- Thread starter as seen on tv
- Start date
So you are in favor of mandatory life sentences for someone accused of domestic abuse or mistreating a pet?
What right do you think is being restricted by a Universal Background Check law?
freyasman
Senator
They fvck up all paperwork.... it's what they do. Go talk to some vets who are trying to appeal their disability percentages, or some of the guys who are waiting on purple hearts they should have gotten years ago.
That would be a very useful thing for you to research....can't wait for you to let me know.
freyasman
Senator
You're the one advocating for UBCs, do your own work.
Caroljo
Senator
Was it that nobody updated the procedures, or did someone just not follow the procedure? Yes....I know there's been more that 1 domestic violence incident since 2007. They usually happen when a soldier comes home and has found their spouse has been messing around while they're gone. Combine that with possible PTSD, and they snap. I know after my son's first deployment, when they came home it was mandatory to attend so many counseling sessions.
Bugsy McGurk
President
freyasman
Senator
More dodging from the troll.
Bugsy McGurk
President
connieb
Senator
I am for very long sentences and mandatory life long parole/ probation for people who have been convicted of violent domestic abuse, yes, absolutely. I am for life sentences for all crimes that include any form of premeditation and act of violence.
The fourth primarily. I find it an invasion of privacy.
freyasman
Senator
Nope, that's dodging troll.
Well...I guess since they can't get paperwork done perfectly we shouldn't have a military at all...isn't that the main theme of the anti-background check crowd?
The records used are public, not private. It has already been ruled on by the supreme court and your side lost.
Meanwhile your suggestion that we imprison people for life isn't a violation of constitutional rights at all...and the right you are defending is the one to sell a gun to anyone you choose to...
freyasman
Senator
No matter what you do, the BC system will fail, just as it has, over and over and over again. Their is simply no justification for burdening the rest of us with this shit, when it does not, has not, and never will, work.
And you and the rest of the gun control crowd know damn well you would never tolerate restrictions like that on any of your other rights, but since you have no respect for the 2nd Amendment and it's supporters, you think it's okay to try and fvck us over with this bullshit.
Last edited:
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
take a chill barnie andy wants his bullet back.
You are the one using that as a vague argument against UBCs...not me. I don't take homework assignments.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
nope the records for a gun purchase is private.
Each time it has failed we have fixed the loopholes. Cho would not be able to buy a gun in Virginia today.
Why should I respect you when you show so little respect for me?
You continue to argue that you have the right to sell a gun to anybody you feel like...and that right just doesn't exist.
connieb
Senator
I think that certain crimes should carry life sentence. I think that should expand to far more crimes than it currently does. Life sentences are constitutional.
freyasman
Senator
Scared to find out? I bet you are.... you have been claiming for awhile now that those 7000 denials mean 7000 criminals were stopped from buying firearms. It's not going to help your argument much if 80% of them are erroneous denials where the person was completely legal to buy, and the system just failed...... again.
https://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967/
From the link;
"Yet, an initial denial does not mean that an individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun. Take the numbers for 2009, the latest year with data available. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation.
As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”
To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.
Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 4,681 referrals, over 51 percent, or 2,390 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed.
Of the rest, 2,291 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review another 572 of these referrals were found “not [to be] a prohibited person,” leaving about 4,154 cases.
That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.2 percent. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been?"
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report/nics-operations-report-2012#Federal Denials
From the link;
Some records used to determine if an individual is eligible to possess or receive a firearm are not complete or up-to-date. As a result, eligible firearm transferees may be subject to lengthy delays or receive erroneous denials even after the completion of a successful appeal. Often, the record-completing information located by NICS Section employees cannot be used to update a criminal history record or an appellant’s fingerprints confirm they are not the subject of the prohibiting record initially matched to the received name and descriptors.
In cases where the matches are refuted by fingerprints, the subject’s deny decision may be overturned and the transaction proceeded. However, because the NICS is required to purge all identifying information regarding proceed transactions within 24 hours of notification to the FFL, in many instances the process must be repeated when the same transferee attempts subsequent firearm purchases and is again matched to the same prohibiting record.
