To do what? Randomly spray the crowd with bullets in hopes of getting the bomber(s)? A gun might be nice to have in certain situations, but they ain't magic.

There was nothing wrong with the bill. It didn't pass because too many senators care more about their jobs than the lives of innocent people.

Who said we needed guns on Monday? That isn't my point.

My point is that even with these stupid laws we are trying to pass, it is not going to stop those who wish to harm others.

We have more important shit to worry about than how I can get a gun. Common sense tells you that laws aside, I can get a gun if I really want to.

All this current BS is just that, BS. I didn't vote this guy in to worry about guns. I voted him in to lower my fucking $70/week medical bill, amongst other much more important things.

I totally agree. I work in a bar, and that's a bullshit law.

But that's just one facet of a problem. Let's not use an axe, but a scalpel to fix the problems.

I'm not against someone selling someone else a gun...personally, I would never do it because that just creeps me out.
Selling someone a hammer wouldn't really work though because there's no way you could know what they were using it for. You can think of it like, post-crime.... would you say "how was I supposed to know" with a hammer? Yes. Yes you would. But if you sold someone a gun, that's different, isn't it?

Or if you went to a club, and I sold you extacy, I would be worried about you until you got home safely. Or I might even go with you to keep you out of trouble. Know what I mean? Then, there's a difference if it's some 14 year old who then kills someone with a hammer. In fact, I probably would not sell someone a hammer while I was selling them drugs either :D

So you think that people should be able to easily buy and sell bombs, since if someone wants to bomb a place they will find a way? 

lol that was tongue in cheek. How you gunna argue that bomb legislation didn't prevent a bombing as a means for saying it similarly doesn't work for guns preventing shootings. That's an argument that's meant to be mocked.

My general problem with the law is it will do nothing to prevent any murder, as legislation cannot dictate behavior. Arguments that say these background checks will help save lives have absolutly no research to support their claims. When the president gets up in front of the cameras and says this law will help save lives, he is lying, and even worse he knows he is lying.

The reality is bad people do bad things and a back ground check on people will only prevent people who want to buy guns for peaceful purposes.

But it does. It does because it helps us find out who did the crime. Without checks and security, we would never find the culprits, which would lead to conversations like "just get a gun from X, and do it, nobody will ever find out".

I think you're caught up in either semantics, or imagination land. We don't expect people to not die by guns. We expect to catch people when they do bad things, and that's what laws help to do.

"paper trail that eventually leads a crime back to the source"

What crime and what source?

If I sell you a gun and you kill someone with it, that's your crime not mine. Again I must explain that laws don't stop criminals. Criminals don't file paper work and honest people don't need the government in their lives any more than it already is. The last thing we need is the government using a gun registry, (paper work), to confiscate honest people's property.

Now how did you possibly get that from what I said?