Because, they thought that they had the start of their statist utopia with Obama, then when Hillary didn't win, they saw their shiny toy being taken away. Now,, think of what a 3 year old does when you take their toy..
To make it a bit more surreal, at the time they accused Republicans of not honoring the results of the election. People haven't forgotten.
No. Just the people who buy guns and then sell them on the black market or fight any laws restricting a mentally ill person from getting one.
No but yes? Educate yourself. One of the biggest educators of guns is the NRA. Go to your local chapter, they will teach you everything you want to know about what a damn fool you have become.
The police legislators and school administrators are supposed to do that. Why do you hold an end user responsible when all of the above systems designed to do just that willfully failed?
Lol, that's some absurd thinking. I hope that isn't what it is. I'm the best person to have a gun, I'd never go nuts and murder people. They should be thinking of nutters and criminals didn't have guns....
The strategy of the left and gun control advocates has always been to define types/classifications of guns and try ban them one type/classification at a time. Types defined over the years and targeted for bans include zip guns, cheap guns, unsafe guns (per government defined safety criteria), automatic guns, semi-auto guns, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, guns that don't look like guns (ATF classification of AOW), rifles greater than .50 cal, guns with high capacity magazine, assault weapons (an umbrella classification), shotguns with revolving cylinders, semi-auto guns that fire from an open bolt, guns that are not "sporting" (note this one was from Republican W Busy), 3d printed guns, and so forth. I don't care what Hogg things or believes in. To me he is just a punk.
For the elite and connected, their bodyguards are ofter former law enforcement officers that are exempted from State and local gun control laws by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act which became law in 2004. This law is why various law enforcement officials are quoted from time to time saying they support strong gun control. Of course they do since they are exempt from gun control laws. Being exempt allows them to bodyguard people like Bloomberg.
None of what I said affects an "end user". Most (not all) of the problem with guns are the intermediate user from which the gun goes from good guy to bad guy.
So in the following statement, who are you referring to in the bold underlined words? in that case we are talking about a person who steals a gun from someone or a person who doesn't let someone know of their felony convictions or History of Violence before they purchase a gun from an end-user. The former is a crime committed against a person and holding them at all accountable for the use of that gun after it was stolen from them is essentially victim-blaming because a person who is a victim of theft is a victim of theft I should be no more responsible for a person who steals my gun and shoots people with it then I should be for a person who steals my car and Robs a Bank with it. The letter is not the fault of the seller. We only require a background check on people when they purchase a gun from an FFL dealer. In the case of a person-to-person sale it is not the sellers job to do a background check on the buyer. And it should never be.
If you are reckless with a gun, you should be held accountable. Keeping a gun in the glove compartment or on the floorboard of an unlocked car is reckless. Not to mention that too many of the guns reported stolen or "lost" are actually just being sold into the black market. Not all, but many. Of course not. Private sellers don't have the resources. That is why all private sales should involve a government subsidized background check, likely through an FFL. The FFL could get $10 for their time on each check. No cost to the private individuals or FFL dealer.
and you are. what about in a locked car? I don't believe this claim. so then a gun could just be sold illegally and there is all the motivation in the world to do so to avoid all these retarded fees and absolutely zero ability to enforce it.
So I take it by you ignoring the rest of the post you just conceded that part of the argument. And if nothing costs anything then you're going to have this network of people that do background checks that all volunteer and do so on donated equipment from donated buildings. If you have to do a background check it costs money you have to pay FBI agents you have to pay for equipment you have to pay for the computers that store the database you have to pay for the buildings that store the computers you have to pay for the electricity that operates the computers you have to pay for a building you have to pay for staff to care for the building. So if there's not going to be fees, there's going to be added cost to taxes, for a stupid law that cannot be enforced? Because at the end of the day I could just sell my gun illegally and report it stolen. It's the same problem that exists now without all the cost. And our deficit is growing and growing and growing everyday by hundreds of thousands of dollars a day.