quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They are the largest market in the United States. So you aren't for letting the market decide?

And of course there is a law that says you have to pay income tax. Constitution proper and the 16th amendment.

There is no law that you have to pay income tax. Look it up. Everything you find will be IRS code and the IRS is a private corporation based in Delaware.

When pressed, officials will say that there needs to be no specific law because it is in the Constitution but that is bullshit. For example the Bill Of Rights say you cannot be deprived of life without due process, but they wrote laws against murder. Why ? Because "congress" shall enact laws to make it happen.

I know people who have beaten them into the fucking dirt, you have NOTHING to say here. You can come up with any cite, any code any anything and it will not be actual law. I am not under the jurisdiction of that private corporation in Delaware known as the IRS. I have a copy of their incorporation papers, care to see them ? I can dropbox them. A friend of mine had the actual certified copies from that state, notarized and everything. He got old and died but he paid nothing and they knew right where he was. Another friend made about $300,000 a year in the construction business and paid nothing. I saw the form they sent him after the banter declaring him a non-taxpayer. I was like WTF, he said it is like being an international arms dealer. I was not easy to convince.

But the fact remains that anything you can quote about who has to pay taxes is IRS code and they are not part of the government and that code was not legislated. The rates are, but not who has to pay.

Look it up.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Ron, you have just proven yourself totally devoid of any knowledge of manufacturing.

The technology it takes to do this will price guns out of the range of the people who need them the most.

Are you for that ? Old people who cannot run or fight, n_____s climbing in the windows. They should just give up the nice shit in their house they worked for and earned, to thugs who would rape them ?

You go live in that world. To my last breath I am against that bullshit.

You do what you want when I am gone. My little second cousins will learn to work the world just like I did, and I was pretty good at it for a time. That ended. Now they will have their time. And theirs after them.

And each one of them, that means girls too, will be taken into the basement and be taught how to shoot. And they will learn to drive on a manual transmission.

In other words this family eagerly awaits California falling into the ocean. Wish we could get rid of New York the same way. Too bad global warming won't do enough...

T^T

Go away you untutored fool. microstamping the pin at manufacture is trivial. it is an automated and quick operation. just before it goes to heat. Look, they engrave guns, they put crosshatch on the stocks and forearms, even many cheap ass guns, lose that shit. Don't pretend you have some insight into cutting parts, you do not.

Another fucking idiot I see. So OK, YOU design the tool that does this and makes a distinct microscopic pattern on each and every firing pin. And then YOU build the machine that does it.

YOU have just proven you know nothing about manufacturing. No wonder you have so much time on your hands.

I have been in the business and know engineers, one of whom made dies for the impellers for jet engines that had like 18 pulls to get the piece out. Know what pulls are when it comes to a die or casting ?

So you got these firing pins and they go into a big bin, they are NOT going to take and record the number off of each one, they will then have to do a test fire and then read the imprint.

Guns are no longer made in a barn out in the hills, they use modern manufacturing techniques and the manufacturers have damn good reason for not wanting to do this. It is stupid and useless. They have had ballistics testing for decades and it solved maybe a dozen murders. Out of how many ?

Plus the fact, another one you don't know, more than half of the murders in this country are unsolved and will remain that way. And many are not even investigated. They don't give a shit unless you are a person of interest or have alot of clout. You think homicide is detecting about all the people shot in Chicago ? Do you think all those bodies in the landfills in Cleveland in the 1960s had a full forensics examination ?

All they are doing is trying to raise the price of guns to keep them out of the hands of the poor, read Black. But also the White poor. The rich don't want a revolt or any upset because they got it good and like the status quo. Well a growing portion of the population is fucking sick of the status quo.

Are you going to give up your gun at the pawn shop ? Just let everyone know you have a bunch of money there and no gun ? Well if you want other people not to have guns you give up your own.

You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Have you ever worked in a machine shop or even studied the field ? Or metallurgy ? Well I have. Something engraved or whatever you want to call it that is that small will wear off before the buyer leaves the shooting range after practice with it. Even if it is titanium. It is a matter of PSI and pressure and inertia and whatever else. If you are such an expert on all this, tell us how many shots can be fired out of such a gun before the unique pattern is worn off to the point that is was a waste of time. You implement this stupid plan if you are so smart, and go to the range ike ten times, shoot like five or six clips every time and then see if the imprint is readable.

Stick to making up words like nutsucker and felchwhatever instead of talking adult things with people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

T^T

No, you are the shitbreather here. The machines already exist. Dude, the riflings of each barrel are unique, thats how they match bullets fired to a gun. Look at letter stamps, how long to wear?

https://www.amazon.com/TEKTON-6610-32-Inch-Letter-36-Piece/dp/B000NPUKY8

Now, to laser engrave the stamp head in miniature, well, been done for a century probably.

http://microstamp.us/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=23&products_id=85&zenid=n4qtrjpqjv6t1c34f6b17t95q5

case harden and there you go.

You should learn machining.

insofar as wear.....

well, you have case hardened steel (with or without a microstamp), and with the use of a spring denting brass or the new throwaway aluminum.

Yeah, no big deal for wear.

You should learn metallurgy.

Alright brainiac, how the fuck much do you think this bullshit will cost ?

What's more, what good will it do ? If I shoot someone it is because I was threatened and I do not carry when out in pubic. (maybe I should)

And are you trying to tell me that that primer that ignites the charge does not experience any of the pressure from that charge ?

And, are they going to test fire every gun at the factory and give out a sheet with the pattern these firing pins produce ?

And, is there going to be a database maintained by law enforcement that doesn't even process rape kits for two fucking years that will be up to date and be able to find out from whom the gun was stolen ?

It may have slipped your mind but most gun owners are law abiding Citizens, and if they buy a new one they have to pass a background check already. The only reason for this imprint on the firing pin shit is because in the city people do, and should, use hollow points or whatever that will not go through the target and into the next room, or apartment, or house.

Or actually make it so only the better off can afford guns, have you even thought of the cost of this ? I bet not.

Go back to making up adjectives, the only other thing you can do apparently is to buy $100 guitars off people down on their luck for $10.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

So you want a ban on gunseven if it means an end around on the Constitution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

So you want a ban on gunseven if it means an end around on the Constitution?

Really, I'd much rather see the well regulated militia clause used. But if there aren't going to be background checks that any militia would use to weed out the mentally ill and the Islamists, than yeah, ban guns for all but the ultra wealthy. This issue has unfortunately, like most issues become a D vs R issue, rather than people acting sensibly. Almost no American really wants the mentally ill or Islamists to have guns, but the politicians on both sides have became so entrenched in their positions, that maybe no one being allowed to have guns is better than the mentally ill and Islamists to having guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

So you want a ban on gunseven if it means an end around on the Constitution?

Really, I'd much rather see the well regulated militia clause used. But if there aren't going to be background checks that any militia would use to weed out the mentally ill and the Islamists, than yeah, ban guns for all but the ultra wealthy. This issue has unfortunately, like most issues become a D vs R issue, rather than people acting sensibly. Almost no American really wants the mentally ill or Islamists to have guns, but the politicians on both sides have became so entrenched in their positions, that maybe no one being allowed to have guns is better than the mentally ill and Islamists to having guns.

First not only pro gun rights people but the NRA also wants to keep guns from Islamists and the mentally ill. The anti gun crowd fights including the mentally ill from background checks on privacy grounds but wants to declare people to be Islamists on the basis of a list that requires no proof of a persons actions to get on it and which the person has no way of knowing if he is.

Do you want people on the no fly list to be bared from voting? Makes as much sense as using it to prevent people from getting guns.

Read the Constitution. It says we need a militia, but it doesn't say the militia has the right to bear arms, is says the people do.

Finally only the elites should have guns, what happened to everyone is equal under the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

So you want a ban on gunseven if it means an end around on the Constitution?

Really, I'd much rather see the well regulated militia clause used. But if there aren't going to be background checks that any militia would use to weed out the mentally ill and the Islamists, than yeah, ban guns for all but the ultra wealthy. This issue has unfortunately, like most issues become a D vs R issue, rather than people acting sensibly. Almost no American really wants the mentally ill or Islamists to have guns, but the politicians on both sides have became so entrenched in their positions, that maybe no one being allowed to have guns is better than the mentally ill and Islamists to having guns.

First not only pro gun rights people but the NRA also wants to keep guns from Islamists and the mentally ill. The anti gun crowd fights including the mentally ill from background checks on privacy grounds but wants to declare people to be Islamists on the basis of a list that requires no proof of a persons actions to get on it and which the person has no way of knowing if he is.

Do you want people on the no fly list to be bared from voting? Makes as much sense as using it to prevent people from getting guns.

Read the Constitution. It says we need a militia, but it doesn't say the militia has the right to bear arms, is says the people do.

Finally only the elites should have guns, what happened to everyone is equal under the law.

The Constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in multiple ways. What point does the well regulated militia have if it isn't about the right to bear arms?

I'd rather err on the side caution being that if someone might be an Islamist or mentally ill, they shouldn't have a gun. While some people might see that as losing a right, people die when Islamists and mentally ill people have guns. People don't generally die based on election results.

I know the NRA sides on the err of caution the other way, it is horrible that both sides can't come together in the middle on this or any issue these days. Compromise is not a bad thing, but it is considered so in this political climate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

So you want a ban on gunseven if it means an end around on the Constitution?

Really, I'd much rather see the well regulated militia clause used. But if there aren't going to be background checks that any militia would use to weed out the mentally ill and the Islamists, than yeah, ban guns for all but the ultra wealthy. This issue has unfortunately, like most issues become a D vs R issue, rather than people acting sensibly. Almost no American really wants the mentally ill or Islamists to have guns, but the politicians on both sides have became so entrenched in their positions, that maybe no one being allowed to have guns is better than the mentally ill and Islamists to having guns.

First not only pro gun rights people but the NRA also wants to keep guns from Islamists and the mentally ill. The anti gun crowd fights including the mentally ill from background checks on privacy grounds but wants to declare people to be Islamists on the basis of a list that requires no proof of a persons actions to get on it and which the person has no way of knowing if he is.

Do you want people on the no fly list to be bared from voting? Makes as much sense as using it to prevent people from getting guns.

Read the Constitution. It says we need a militia, but it doesn't say the militia has the right to bear arms, is says the people do.

Finally only the elites should have guns, what happened to everyone is equal under the law.

The Constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in multiple ways. What point does the well regulated militia have if it isn't about the right to bear arms?

I'd rather err on the side caution being that if someone might be an Islamist or mentally ill, they shouldn't have a gun. While some people might see that as losing a right, people die when Islamists and mentally ill people have guns. People don't generally die based on election results.

I know the NRA sides on the err of caution the other way, it is horrible that both sides can't come together in the middle on this or any issue these days. Compromise is not a bad thing, but it is considered so in this political climate.

People don't die because of elections?
Of course they do.
Elections can and do decide the course of the nation.
Using the do not fly list is as it is currently put together is a violation of due process, no proof, or even solid evidence is needed to put people on it, you can get onto it if someone suspicious has the same name as you. If it is good enough to destroy one right it is good enough to take them all.
If they have evidence why don't they prosecute them?
What is the point of having a militia full of people who don't know how to use guns?
Keep in mind that when I interrupt someone trying to break into my neighbors house I am the militia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They are the largest market in the United States. So you aren't for letting the market decide?

And of course there is a law that says you have to pay income tax. Constitution proper and the 16th amendment.

There is no law that you have to pay income tax. Look it up. Everything you find will be IRS code and the IRS is a private corporation based in Delaware.

quote:


When pressed, officials will say that there needs to be no specific law because it is in the Constitution but that is bullshit. For example the Bill Of Rights say you cannot be deprived of life without due process, but they wrote laws against murder. Why ? Because "congress" shall enact laws to make it happen.

quote:

I am not under the jurisdiction of that private corporation in Delaware known as the IRS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

So you want a ban on gunseven if it means an end around on the Constitution?

Really, I'd much rather see the well regulated militia clause used. But if there aren't going to be background checks that any militia would use to weed out the mentally ill and the Islamists, than yeah, ban guns for all but the ultra wealthy. This issue has unfortunately, like most issues become a D vs R issue, rather than people acting sensibly. Almost no American really wants the mentally ill or Islamists to have guns, but the politicians on both sides have became so entrenched in their positions, that maybe no one being allowed to have guns is better than the mentally ill and Islamists to having guns.

First not only pro gun rights people but the NRA also wants to keep guns from Islamists and the mentally ill. The anti gun crowd fights including the mentally ill from background checks on privacy grounds but wants to declare people to be Islamists on the basis of a list that requires no proof of a persons actions to get on it and which the person has no way of knowing if he is.

Do you want people on the no fly list to be bared from voting? Makes as much sense as using it to prevent people from getting guns.

Read the Constitution. It says we need a militia, but it doesn't say the militia has the right to bear arms, is says the people do.

Finally only the elites should have guns, what happened to everyone is equal under the law.

The Constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in multiple ways. What point does the well regulated militia have if it isn't about the right to bear arms?

I'd rather err on the side caution being that if someone might be an Islamist or mentally ill, they shouldn't have a gun. While some people might see that as losing a right, people die when Islamists and mentally ill people have guns. People don't generally die based on election results.

I know the NRA sides on the err of caution the other way, it is horrible that both sides can't come together in the middle on this or any issue these days. Compromise is not a bad thing, but it is considered so in this political climate.

People don't die because of elections?
Of course they do.
Elections can and do decide the course of the nation.
Using the do not fly list is as it is currently put together is a violation of due process, no proof, or even solid evidence is needed to put people on it, you can get onto it if someone suspicious has the same name as you. If it is good enough to destroy one right it is good enough to take them all.
If they have evidence why don't they prosecute them?
What is the point of having a militia full of people who don't know how to use guns?
Keep in mind that when I interrupt someone trying to break into my neighbors house I am the militia.

You are assuming I'm suggesting policies that are totally inline with what some Democrats have suggested. That's not quite what I'm suggesting. I'm really more of a moderate on most issues and a radical on others.

I'd like to see a militia full of sane, non-Islamists, ready to protect our nation in the case we have a real threat to our sovereignty. While that is unlikely with our current status, if perhaps Russia, China, Mexico, and Canada teamed up, it could be and our current military might not be enough. I'd like to see the militia have regular psych evaluations, as a fitness to serve. Some occasional training wouldn't be a bad idea either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or




You can't make guns cost ten grand, not with stupid regulations like this. It is against the Constitution. Just like when you get into a court case, you don't have to pay any fees for getting public documents. They have already made it so you can get an ID free so that people who don't even have the twelve bucks can vote.

Not quite like this, but aren't guns property? Governments do tax that. Is there really not any way to tax $10,000/year as a property tax on firearms? Seems reasonable. I hope someone proposes it...I'd personally go $10 million/year, but $10,000 is a good start.

So you want a ban on gunseven if it means an end around on the Constitution?

Really, I'd much rather see the well regulated militia clause used. But if there aren't going to be background checks that any militia would use to weed out the mentally ill and the Islamists, than yeah, ban guns for all but the ultra wealthy. This issue has unfortunately, like most issues become a D vs R issue, rather than people acting sensibly. Almost no American really wants the mentally ill or Islamists to have guns, but the politicians on both sides have became so entrenched in their positions, that maybe no one being allowed to have guns is better than the mentally ill and Islamists to having guns.

First not only pro gun rights people but the NRA also wants to keep guns from Islamists and the mentally ill. The anti gun crowd fights including the mentally ill from background checks on privacy grounds but wants to declare people to be Islamists on the basis of a list that requires no proof of a persons actions to get on it and which the person has no way of knowing if he is.

Do you want people on the no fly list to be bared from voting? Makes as much sense as using it to prevent people from getting guns.

Read the Constitution. It says we need a militia, but it doesn't say the militia has the right to bear arms, is says the people do.

Finally only the elites should have guns, what happened to everyone is equal under the law.

The Constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted in multiple ways. What point does the well regulated militia have if it isn't about the right to bear arms?

I'd rather err on the side caution being that if someone might be an Islamist or mentally ill, they shouldn't have a gun. While some people might see that as losing a right, people die when Islamists and mentally ill people have guns. People don't generally die based on election results.

I know the NRA sides on the err of caution the other way, it is horrible that both sides can't come together in the middle on this or any issue these days. Compromise is not a bad thing, but it is considered so in this political climate.

People don't die because of elections?
Of course they do.
Elections can and do decide the course of the nation.
Using the do not fly list is as it is currently put together is a violation of due process, no proof, or even solid evidence is needed to put people on it, you can get onto it if someone suspicious has the same name as you. If it is good enough to destroy one right it is good enough to take them all.
If they have evidence why don't they prosecute them?
What is the point of having a militia full of people who don't know how to use guns?
Keep in mind that when I interrupt someone trying to break into my neighbors house I am the militia.

You are assuming I'm suggesting policies that are totally inline with what some Democrats have suggested. That's not quite what I'm suggesting. I'm really more of a moderate on most issues and a radical on others.

I'd like to see a militia full of sane, non-Islamists, ready to protect our nation in the case we have a real threat to our sovereignty. While that is unlikely with our current status, if perhaps Russia, China, Mexico, and Canada teamed up, it could be and our current military might not be enough. I'd like to see the militia have regular psych evaluations, as a fitness to serve. Some occasional training wouldn't be a bad idea either.

You want to make guns so expensive that only the "elites" can afford them.
While you may not follow exactly the path the Dems want to your goal is the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Sigh...

The "well regulated militia" is an enabling clause stating why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
___________________________________________
The cost of $150.00 per firearm to implement micro-stamping is due to the record keeping, labor for back fitting, and certification to show a given micro-stamp is tied to a given firearm serial number. Since it takes about 5 minutes to grind off the micro-stamp on a firing pin and even less time to strip down and replace a firing pin; the added cost to a firearm is totally ineffectual in gaining any benefit to criminal justice prosecution. Micro-stamping is just more onerous bureaucratic requirement with no benefit to anyone.
_________________________________________________

There are already background check requirements in place to purchase a firearm. Alluding that there are none is fantasy based inflammatory rhetoric. We don't need more legislation we just need the administration to enforce the laws already on the books. But, enforcing the laws already in effect doesn't make political brownie points like screaming things like "gun show loophole". BTW, the "gun show loophole" is a total fantasy fabrication to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Sigh...

The "well regulated militia" is an enabling clause stating why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
___________________________________________
The cost of $150.00 per firearm to implement micro-stamping is due to the record keeping, labor for back fitting, and certification to show a given micro-stamp is tied to a given firearm serial number. Since it takes about 5 minutes to grind off the micro-stamp on a firing pin and even less time to strip down and replace a firing pin; the added cost to a firearm is totally ineffectual in gaining any benefit to criminal justice prosecution. Micro-stamping is just more onerous bureaucratic requirement with no benefit to anyone.
_________________________________________________

There are already background check requirements in place to purchase a firearm. Alluding that there are none is fantasy based inflammatory rhetoric. We don't need more legislation we just need the administration to enforce the laws already on the books. But, enforcing the laws already in effect doesn't make political brownie points like screaming things like "gun show loophole". BTW, the "gun show loophole" is a total fantasy fabrication to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.