obama not after your guns ?

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

Holy run-on sentence. And why'd you capitalize the 'M' in mental?

GF... you're as kooky as they come, but this place would be the shits without you. And don't take this the wrong way- I'm not saying anything other than you are unique.

HAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH thAnKS....you just made my day !

Godfather.

PJ_Soul

Godfather. said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

there are too many folks on here that see no reason to own a gun and just don't understand the 2nd amendment, they ask questions that only bring light to them selfs or the anti gun cause,it seems they only have thier own interest and views in mind so asking another to give up thier gun is no problem for them but at the end of the day it makes no matter what they believe because the right to own and carry will never go away and even if by some slim chance this country went all commi on us Americans would still have thier guns and never give them up.

Godfather.

For the zillionth time: no one is trying to keep Americans from owning guns. They just want it better regulated. FFS.

Godfather.

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

That is actually untrue and horribly ignorant. The background check for SS is to make sure someone who has admitted to being mentally disabled cannot get a weapon. It is a very efficient way to add additional restrictions to someone that is legally already restricted.

Not everybody on SS is a mental case, everybody I know on SS worked thier whole lives and earned it, so when I turn 65 and retire I will be mentally disabled ?....(not a word from you thirty) HAHHAHHA

Godfather.

Gern Blansten

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

That is actually untrue and horribly ignorant. The background check for SS is to make sure someone who has admitted to being mentally disabled cannot get a weapon. It is a very efficient way to add additional restrictions to someone that is legally already restricted.

Not everybody on SS is a mental case, everybody I know on SS worked thier whole lives and earned it, so when I turn 65 and retire I will be mentally disabled ?....(not a word from you thirty) HAHHAHHA

Godfather.

correct...so for all those on SS that aren't admittedly mentally disabled it would have no effect whatsoever.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

there are too many folks on here that see no reason to own a gun and just don't understand the 2nd amendment, they ask questions that only bring light to them selfs or the anti gun cause,it seems they only have thier own interest and views in mind so asking another to give up thier gun is no problem for them but at the end of the day it makes no matter what they believe because the right to own and carry will never go away and even if by some slim chance this country went all commi on us Americans would still have thier guns and never give them up.

Godfather.

For the zillionth time: no one is trying to keep Americans from owning guns. They just want it better regulated. FFS.

The NRA and many of it's supporters will ignore this forever because it runs against their ingrained and stubborn belief that if you place any kind of restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever somebody is going to take them all away. So many of these people have dug in their heels so deeply they will never see the logic of what you (and so many of us) have suggested. All or nothing/ black and white thinking.

rgambs

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

That is actually untrue and horribly ignorant. The background check for SS is to make sure someone who has admitted to being mentally disabled cannot get a weapon. It is a very efficient way to add additional restrictions to someone that is legally already restricted.

Not everybody on SS is a mental case, everybody I know on SS worked thier whole lives and earned it, so when I turn 65 and retire I will be mentally disabled ?....(not a word from you thirty) HAHHAHHA

Godfather.

Only a da Godfodda could do such a good job of misunderstanding his own post lol

It has already been explained a few times, this is for people who aren't able to handle their own affairs. When you turn 65 this will still have ZERO effect on you.

g under p

Godfather. said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

there are too many folks on here that see no reason to own a gun and just don't understand the 2nd amendment, they ask questions that only bring light to them selfs or the anti gun cause,it seems they only have thier own interest and views in mind so asking another to give up thier gun is no problem for them but at the end of the day it makes no matter what they believe because the right to own and carry will never go away and even if by some slim chance this country went all commi on us Americans would still have thier guns and never give them up.

Godfather.

I really don't think ANYONE here wants to take guns away from Americans. It will simply NEVER EVER going to happen in this country. So stop with this already, all I'd like to see is stricter background checks on purchasing weapons online for example.

In college I was on my schools ROTC rifle team. A few years ago I wanted what the new 25 caliber smallbore rifles were like. I chose all the necessities I wanted on the rifle etc. the price came to almost 2k ALL I needed was a credit card and I would have said rifle at my door I a few days...that was it. I'm in Florida to me that's far too easy to get a rifle. A 16 year old could've ordered that rifle, that's the kind of tough waiting period and background check I'd like to see implemented.

Peace

rr165892

Gern Blansten said:

I am a gun owner, CCP holder, etc. I support massive increases in background checks, waiting periods to cover background checks, etc. I also don't believe that the public should be allowed to purchase weapons made for police of military use.

Those beliefs do not trample on the 2nd amendment.

I basically ditto this whole thing.Although I think you should be able to get special exceptions for certain non full automatic types of rifles that may also be military or law enforcement esque.
But i would be fine with mag size restrictions.

Last-12-Exit

Godfather. said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Does any one ever concede on here? Mcgruff is cleary right about this, but no one can admit to that it seems.

there are too many folks on here that see no reason to own a gun and just don't understand the 2nd amendment, they ask questions that only bring light to them selfs or the anti gun cause,it seems they only have thier own interest and views in mind so asking another to give up thier gun is no problem for them but at the end of the day it makes no matter what they believe because the right to own and carry will never go away and even if by some slim chance this country went all commi on us Americans would still have thier guns and never give them up.

Godfather.

I'd like for you to point out any one person that has said you shouldn't be able to own guns.

Gern Blansten said:

I am a gun owner, CCP holder, etc. I support massive increases in background checks, waiting periods to cover background checks, etc. I also don't believe that the public should be allowed to purchase weapons made for police of military use.

Those beliefs do not trample on the 2nd amendment.

I agree with that 100%

mickeyrat

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

I support back ground checks as well (criminal and Mental) but I oppose blanket back ground checks based on social security or anything else so sloppy, these people in the obama admin. do this to leave doors open to broadin the net they try and throw to make gun ownership harder for all Americans


Godfather.

That is actually untrue and horribly ignorant. The background check for SS is to make sure someone who has admitted to being mentally disabled cannot get a weapon. It is a very efficient way to add additional restrictions to someone that is legally already restricted.

Not everybody on SS is a mental case, everybody I know on SS worked thier whole lives and earned it, so when I turn 65 and retire I will be mentally disabled ?....(not a word from you thirty) HAHHAHHA

Godfather.

You still dont get the fact that during the background check process, access to that data base will reveal those who have had exhaustive medical histories done in order to secure SSDI Social Security DISABILITY INSURANCE payments. In order to qualify , a person MUST have a well documented case history before they receive these payments for life. So it makes complete sense that these data bases SHOULD be used in an otherwise lacking backround check.

At present there are GAPING holes in the process that would preclude someone WHO SHOULDNT have one in the first place. As it stands now , some who shouldnt get guns, do get guns.

mickeyrat

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

rgambs

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

I'm an Ohio gun owner who is terribly ashamed of our role in fueling Chicago and easy coast violence.

If the vast majority of gun owners are responsible how do the criminals get the guns?
Shouldn't the tiny minority that traffics guns to gangs be easy to track and eliminate?
The answer is yes, of ccourse, IF there weren't so many nutters who drink the NRA koolaid!

Every single gun sold should have a serial number which is traceable to the purchaser, with laws to punish the original oowner if the I gun is used in a crime. You want to make a private sale, you handle it just like selling a car, by going to the proper agency to change registration.

rr165892

rgambs said:

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

I'm an Ohio gun owner who is terribly ashamed of our role in fueling Chicago and easy coast violence.

If the vast majority of gun owners are responsible how do the criminals get the guns?
Shouldn't the tiny minority that traffics guns to gangs be easy to track and eliminate?
The answer is yes, of ccourse, IF there weren't so many nutters who drink the NRA koolaid!

Every single gun sold should have a serial number which is traceable to the purchaser, with laws to punish the original oowner if the I gun is used in a crime. You want to make a private sale, you handle it just like selling a car, by going to the proper agency to change registration.

And reporting it when it gets stolen or misplaced.This is not unreasonable.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

I'm an Ohio gun owner who is terribly ashamed of our role in fueling Chicago and easy coast violence.

If the vast majority of gun owners are responsible how do the criminals get the guns?
Shouldn't the tiny minority that traffics guns to gangs be easy to track and eliminate?
The answer is yes, of ccourse, IF there weren't so many nutters who drink the NRA koolaid!

Every single gun sold should have a serial number which is traceable to the purchaser, with laws to punish the original oowner if the I gun is used in a crime. You want to make a private sale, you handle it just like selling a car, by going to the proper agency to change registration.

Yah, but what you are suggesting here implies accountability and responsibility.

A lot of gun owners don't want that- they just wanna shoot shit and not get hassled.

mcgruff10

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

you want the original owner of the gun held liable if the gun is sold to another person and used in a crime? so this is like saying if I sell my truck and the new owner kills someone while driving intoxicated I'm also in trouble?
where is the logic in that?

oftenreading

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

you want the original owner of the gun held liable if the gun is sold to another person and used in a crime? so this is like saying if I sell my truck and the new owner kills someone while driving intoxicated I'm also in trouble?
where is the logic in that?

I don't want to speak for mickeyrat but I assumed he meant that if the gun was sold without going through the proper legal channels then the last legitimate owner would be responsible. That would put the onus on each legitimate owner to use the appropriate process to sell the gun, just like the process of privately selling a car and having that registered (here it is with our provincial insurance company). If it is stolen, then it should be reported immediately.

mickeyrat

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

you want the original owner of the gun held liable if the gun is sold to another person and used in a crime? so this is like saying if I sell my truck and the new owner kills someone while driving intoxicated I'm also in trouble?
where is the logic in that?

I don't want to speak for mickeyrat but I assumed he meant that if the gun was sold without going through the proper legal channels then the last legitimate owner would be responsible. That would put the onus on each legitimate owner to use the appropriate process to sell the gun, just like the process of privately selling a car and having that registered (here it is with our provincial insurance company). If it is stolen, then it should be reported immediately.

excellent assumption.

Mcgruff, read up a bit on Ohio Gun laws. Dont worry, its a short read. I hope at that point you could better understand my position.

I have yet to have a reasoned answer as to where the bad guys are procuring all these weapons that everyone else needs armed against to combat the problem. Start there on "gun control".

mcgruff10

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

you want the original owner of the gun held liable if the gun is sold to another person and used in a crime? so this is like saying if I sell my truck and the new owner kills someone while driving intoxicated I'm also in trouble?
where is the logic in that?

I don't want to speak for mickeyrat but I assumed he meant that if the gun was sold without going through the proper legal channels then the last legitimate owner would be responsible. That would put the onus on each legitimate owner to use the appropriate process to sell the gun, just like the process of privately selling a car and having that registered (here it is with our provincial insurance company). If it is stolen, then it should be reported immediately.

yeah if a gun is sold illegally i think the charge should be illegal sale of a weapon, nothing more. perhaps make the consequences of selling a weapon illegally harsher but don't charge them with whatever crime was committed with the illegal gun.

brianlux

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

you want the original owner of the gun held liable if the gun is sold to another person and used in a crime? so this is like saying if I sell my truck and the new owner kills someone while driving intoxicated I'm also in trouble?
where is the logic in that?

I don't want to speak for mickeyrat but I assumed he meant that if the gun was sold without going through the proper legal channels then the last legitimate owner would be responsible. That would put the onus on each legitimate owner to use the appropriate process to sell the gun, just like the process of privately selling a car and having that registered (here it is with our provincial insurance company). If it is stolen, then it should be reported immediately.

yeah if a gun is sold illegally i think the charge should be illegal sale of a weapon, nothing more. perhaps make the consequences of selling a weapon illegally harsher but don't charge them with whatever crime was committed with the illegal gun.

What exactly is the law pertaining to such a situation? I would think the person illegally selling a gun used in a crime would be at least held partially responsible since the result of such a "sale" is more likely to be involved in a crime that one sold legally.

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

Someone asked a few posts back why people here dont concede when a poster has CLEARY won the debate.

This is why.....Article is a couple years old but it illustrates my point perfectly about MY state.


http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/21/Ohio-is-a-top-supplier-of-guns-used-crimes-in-other-states.html

As a citizen of Ohio , I am ashamed that people have died as a result of the laxity in Ohios laws governing gun sales. ONLY the initial purchaser needs to undergo the checks established by law. PRIVATE Sales do not.

So as a legally able person to purchase as many guns as I wish , I could then sell to whomever I wanted after that. Fuck all that that person may or may not be able to purchase otherwise.

People say that the bad guys will get them regardless, I agree, but the laws in Ohio make that so incredibly easy

Because traceability is made so difficult on authorites I shudder to think how many bought in Ohio have been used for crime elsewhere since these studies came out.

If the intial buyer of a weapon could be held accountable when that gun is proven to have been used in criminal activity , we would likely see a drop in the number of guns found so readily on the streets. Logic states such. Choose to ingnore this ,then there is no reason to "debate" Your fucking opinions are meaningless.

you want the original owner of the gun held liable if the gun is sold to another person and used in a crime? so this is like saying if I sell my truck and the new owner kills someone while driving intoxicated I'm also in trouble?
where is the logic in that?

I don't want to speak for mickeyrat but I assumed he meant that if the gun was sold without going through the proper legal channels then the last legitimate owner would be responsible. That would put the onus on each legitimate owner to use the appropriate process to sell the gun, just like the process of privately selling a car and having that registered (here it is with our provincial insurance company). If it is stolen, then it should be reported immediately.

yeah if a gun is sold illegally i think the charge should be illegal sale of a weapon, nothing more. perhaps make the consequences of selling a weapon illegally harsher but don't charge them with whatever crime was committed with the illegal gun.

The specific charge isn't as important as the penalty, which should be severe.