Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

sir pball

(4,948 posts)

5. Well, it would have stopped him from buying from an FFL, not that that would have mattered.

Reply to Squinch (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 03:24 PM

Sep 2013

Seeing as how he could have just picked up the local Penny Saver and bought one privately, no BGC (or gun show/internet) required. Which is precisely why I support requiring all transactions to be done via FFL, like I personally always do when selling. And would be perfectly fine with disallowing sales while a restraining order or DV charges are pending.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Greensboro shooting victim knew estranged husband had a rifle [View all] Robb Sep 2013 OP

this is why the NRA supports re-arming violent felons sigmasix Sep 2013 #1

Welcome to the gun-infested NRA wet-dream culture. madinmaryland Sep 2013 #2

The NRA and billh58 Sep 2013 #3

Even if she were able to get an order of protection, it is pretty meaningless Squinch Sep 2013 #4

Well, it would have stopped him from buying from an FFL, not that that would have mattered. sir pball Sep 2013 #5

He went through the system to buy the gun. Robb Sep 2013 #6

I know, and I agree he shouldn't have been able to. sir pball Sep 2013 #7

But do you see what my point is in this? We are pretty much guaranteeing him a gun, Squinch Sep 2013 #8