In article ,
says...

On 1/26/2013 1:17 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 1/26/2013 11:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article df39c9b7-6bc7-462e-b0f8-
, says...

On Jan 25, 8:28 am, Boating All Out wrote:
In article 23964fc7-fc2d-4d59-ba67-
, says...



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24...gal-gun-sales-...

"They will be sentenced April 15."

Not soon enough!

No, contrary to some beliefs in here, the NRA does NOT support
criminal gun trade. And looks like Fox doesn't either.

NRA won't agree to gun registration and personal responsibility.
It would hurt sales. Simple as that. Deny it all you want.
Come up with all your paranoid bull**** excuses about why you don't want
gun ownership traceable.
Fact is the NRA is even fighting unlicensed sellers doing background
checks right now.
That's where the felon husband in this story got his guns.
The FFL licensed wife didn't keep good records.
NRA always fights to to reduce FFL record keeping.
So it's clear the NRA always fights to keep guns available to criminals.
It's just good business practice from their viewpoint.
They want high gun sales. Making gun ownership traceable will hurt gun
sales.
If Fox supports the NRA, they are also fighting to keep guns available
to criminals. And if they don't, they don't.
Reporting a news story means nothing. That's the primary function of a
news organization.
This is all plain common sense.

None of the above.

about 90% of guns used in crimes were stolen from a lawful owner.

No problem.... idiot!!!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

http://www.commongunsense.com/2012/0...e-problem.html

http://extranosalley.com/?p=10368

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fu...tudy/story?id=
18318610

I will stipulate to the above, even though I doubt they are even related
to the conversation... now see below. snerk

Simply, if there were fewer guns to be stolen there would be fewer
crimes committed by guns.

Cite?

You stupid little idiot!!!!! ALL of those websites ARE the "cite".....
Holy ****, it's put right dead in front of your nose and you are still
too stupid to understand what you read...... incredible.

As for the comment about fewer guns, there would be fewer gun crimes,
it's truly amazing to me that you are too stupid to understand a simple
thing like that. Try this. Lets say, to keep it very simple for you and
other people as stupid as you, although that highly unlikely, that all
of a sudden there were no guns to be stolen. Now you tell me, how the
**** could a crime be committed with a stolen gun if there were no guns
to be stolen???? My God you're stupid. I can't believe you need this
explained to you.