dwccrew;712899 wrote:I'm pretty sure you have to be a resident within the state you are purchasing the gun, at least for handguns. I live in Ohio, I can't go to Michigan and buy a handgun (legally). I'd have to have a licensed Ohio dealer buy it for me and have it delivered to their store. If I am too loony to do so, that dealer will refuse to have the gun delivered and I can't get my gun.

Again, leave it to the states to handle this.

LJ;713010 wrote:It's true. You have to be a resident of the state you are buying in to buy any gun

stlouiedipalma;713011 wrote:I remember hearing in 2008 that Obama would take everyone's guns away if he were elected. Now you want to keep that myth running for 2012. What happens if Obama is re-elected and none of your "chicken little" prophecy comes to pass?


This is a bullshit issue, always has been and always will be. The gun lobby has been saying things like this for years and it never happens. The simple truth is that the gun lobby has too much money and too many of our elected officials in their pocket. Like any other special interest group, all they have to do is pull the strings and let the dance begin.

O-Trap;713014 wrote:I don't think Obama will do it even in a second term. I think he knows it would ruin his perceived legacy for many in the population.

stlouiedipalma;713021 wrote:Not to the degree that some would have you think.

Bottom line: I can get a gun if I want one, and I can get it legally. End of discussion.

When I cannot make that statement, then you can say that gun control is here.

tsst_fballfan;713148 wrote:You are quite possibly right. He is not a dumb man. Although on the proverbial flip side it would solidify his legacy with the gun control inane left. I would far rather cluck "the sky is falling" to keep his ideology at bay than trust an unopposed enacting of his personal gun control agenda.

O-Trap;713157 wrote:If one thing seems to have held true about President Obama thus far, he appears to care a great deal about his image as perceived by the general audience (read: not the fringe elements).

In a strange way, I feel as though a lot of trust can be placed in the idea that he is going to do what makes him look the best to the greatest number of people in a lot of ways. Greed, arrogance, pride, or any combination of the three can always be trusted if a person is not intentionally trying to deny them, and that's in all people.

I don't think he's an exception.

Bigdogg;713173 wrote:

FatHobbit;713077 wrote:Seems like dwcrew's solution is a simple one then.

Glory Days;713275 wrote:Except for when you dont buy a gun from a dealer and instead buy it from the back of some guy's truck.

Glory Days;713275 wrote:Except for when you dont buy a gun from a dealer and instead buy it from the back of some guy's truck.

Belly35;713785 wrote:Let me make this simple for you … Obama those that buy a weapon at a retail operation are not the criminals… using the guns

FatHobbit;713833 wrote:I think the guy who shot up virginia tech and the other guy who shot the senator bought their firearms legally through a gun store. I would not be upset if people who are off their rocker are denied the right to buy firearms. (I can agree that who gets to decide that is a slippery slope.)

LJ;713836 wrote:The law is already in place and those 2 WERE deemed mentally unstable, but it was never reported to the proper authorities.

BGFalcons82;713846 wrote:If they were mentally unstable, then shouldn't they have been in an institution?
Why were there mentally unstable people allowed to walk the streets alone?
Or is just being under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist enough to qualify as unstable?
Or is it if you take pills to help you sleep...or anti-depressants....or Ritalin?
Or is it if you spouse says you are nuts?

Where does it end? Or more importantly...where does it START?

BGFalcons82;713846 wrote:If they were mentally unstable, then shouldn't they have been in an institution?
Why were there mentally unstable people allowed to walk the streets alone?
Or is just being under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist enough to qualify as unstable?
Or is it if you take pills to help you sleep...or anti-depressants....or Ritalin?
Or is it if you spouse says you are nuts?

Where does it end? Or more importantly...where does it START?

tsst_fballfan;713871 wrote:I think if we are to rely on the 'unstable rating' it should be totally independent. The fedgov should not have any control or input. It should also require multiple doctors to share that opinion. It cannot be easy to have someone determined unstable because if it is it will be abused by our fedgov.

LJ;713836 wrote:The law is already in place and those 2 WERE deemed mentally unstable, but it was never reported to the proper authorities.

LJ;713876 wrote:They have to be determined a threat to harm themselves or others. That determination is completely independant of the gov. The types of unstable DO need to be determined by the gov because then you just have dr's running around just taking people's rights.

tsst_fballfan;713951 wrote:I can agree with the fedgov setting the type but they should not have input into the medical determination.

CenterBHSFan;714295 wrote:I'm still leary of even that much fed.gov. involvement. Government can easily set the type that "quick-tempered" is unstable/unable to be responsible to own guns. I mean, that may or may not ever happen, but I wouldn't put it past a stacked "house" activist congress, either.

stlouiedipalma;714567 wrote:I've got a serious question. If possible, I would like to hear serious, rational answers to it.

We've had some pretty liberal Congresses and pretty liberal Presidents during our history. If they didn't take your guns away from you before, what makes you think they will do it in the future?

LJ;714576 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

stlouiedipalma;714730 wrote:You really need these weapons?

The law expired and it hasn't been brought back, so I would guess that I can still buy one of these.