Background checks and registering sales is "extreme"

[BlandFood]

If it saves just one person.........................

Therefore ALL cars need to be retrofitted with airbags and antiskid brakes.

[soultrain]

Exactly. If you're not breaking any laws, why fear background checks?

Well, since only bad guys have things to hide, we might as well flush the 4th amendment...seems quite unnecessary

[Grindelwald]

Well, since only bad guys have things to hide, we might as well flush the 4th amendment...seems quite unnecessary

What do "unreasonable searches" have to do with anything? A background check isn't unreasonable and it isn't a search. People are so uneducated. Of all the things to complain about, background checks isn't one of them, unless you're against trying to reduce ways criminals can obtain guns.

[soultrain]

Do you think slavery is necessary and proper? I sure don't.

I do not, but I bet there are those who think it is, just as those who think regulating arms is necessary and proper.

The only "flexibility" in the Constitution is the ability to amend it or whatever perverted interpretation politicians and judges declare

[soultrain]

What do "unreasonable searches" have to do with anything? A background check isn't unreasonable and it isn't a search. People are so uneducated. Of all the things to complain about, background checks isn't one of them, unless you're against trying to reduce ways criminals can obtain guns.

Submit and obey....I'll pass

[dsummoner]

What do "unreasonable searches" have to do with anything? A background check isn't unreasonable and it isn't a search. People are so uneducated. Of all the things to complain about, background checks isn't one of them, unless you're against trying to reduce ways criminals can obtain guns.

It is not unreasonable for you to volunteer your own cavities to your government masters for cavity searching. It is, however, unreasonable for you to try and force yourself onto others and 'volunteer' others for your government masters' sadistic pleasures.

[Grindelwald]

I do not, but I bet there are those who think it is, just as those who think regulating arms is necessary and proper.

The only "flexibility" in the Constitution is the ability to amend it or whatever perverted interpretation politicians and judges declare

The two are completely unrelated...

[dsummoner]

The two are completely unrelated...

You still don't get it.

[OldBay]

What do "unreasonable searches" have to do with anything? A background check isn't unreasonable and it isn't a search. People are so uneducated. Of all the things to complain about, background checks isn't one of them, unless you're against trying to reduce ways criminals can obtain guns.

As a once starving grad student, I traded a shotgun that I owned to a farmer (who had a deer nuisance permit) for a chainsaw because heating my house was a more immediate need at the time. This trade was perfectly legal way back then and would still be legal today. What greater good could possibly come from not allowing such a trade or sale of private property today?

Note that a background check requirement for all guns would prevent such a trade that worked to our mutual benefit and allowed us to provide for ourselves - with no help from gov't (taxpayers) for heating assistance to me or for deer control to the farmer.

[Daan]

What do "unreasonable searches" have to do with anything? A background check isn't unreasonable and it isn't a search. People are so uneducated. Of all the things to complain about, background checks isn't one of them, unless you're against trying to reduce ways criminals can obtain guns.

You've already admitted that a background check will not prevent another Newtown.

And it will not catch criminals because they do not do background checks. Which brings us to the mandatory registration part.

The mandatory registration requirement is not legal and considering what was done by a newspaper in New York, publishing the names and addresses of registered gun owners, it makes them a source of firearms for the criminal types.

Get it.


Now please tell us what the next two steps ("walk" and "run") are that you are envisioning after the "baby" steps of background check and registration are enacted into law.

.

[Grindelwald]

Brilliant repose. This sums the entirety of your posts

You probably haven't posted enough to realize this, but summoner is just a troll, repeating cute phrases like a smashed record player. It wouldn't surprise me if he was liberal in disguise.

As a once starving grad student, I traded a shotgun that I owned to a farmer (who had a deer nuisance permit) for a chainsaw because heating my house was a more immediate need at the time. This trade was perfectly legal way back then and would still be legal today. What greater good could possibly come from not allowing such a trade or sale of private property today?

Note that a background check requirement for all guns would prevent such a trade that worked to our mutual benefit and allowed us to provide for ourselves - with no help from gov't (taxpayers) for heating assistance to me or for deer control to the farmer.

Why would that be so?

You've already admitted that a background check will not prevent another Newtown.

And it will not catch criminals because they do not do background checks. Which brings us to the mandatory registration part.

The mandatory registration requirement is not legal and considering what was done by a newspaper in New York, publishing the names and addresses of registered gun owners, it makes them a source of firearms for the criminal types.

Get it.

And you are still thicker than a brick wall. It is a way to reduce the number of ways a criminal can get a gun, and there is no downside to that. Heaven forbid there should be a background check to own something that could kill people. I honestly thought this was common sense stuff, but apparently, I was wrong. Didn't know some people were this dumb.

Now please tell us what the next two steps ("walk" and "run") are that you are envisioning after the "baby" steps of background check and registration are enacted into law.

Cracking down on the Black market and background checks at gun shows. What are yours? Haven't heard your ideas yet, funny enough.

[Daan]

And you are still thicker than a brick wall. It is a way to reduce the number of ways a criminal can get a gun, and there is no downside to that. Heaven forbid there should be a background check to own something that could kill people. I honestly thought this was common sense stuff, but apparently, I was wrong. Didn't know some people were this dumb.

Background checks will not stop criminal violence with guns. Criminals do not do background checks.

"background check to own something that could kill people"? Another example of your simple minded shallow thinking. How many things can be used to kill people?

"Common sense" is something you evidently do not possess.

Cracking down on the Black market and background checks at gun shows.

"Black market"? You mean just like with the illicit drug trade? How's that working?

What are yours? Haven't heard your ideas yet, funny enough.

You still have not answered the question, how will anything you have proposed prevent another Newtown.


BTW, the name calling is more proof that you have nothing and are clueless.

.

[Grindelwald]

Where did I name call? And do you really want me to bring up statistics on murders committed by a firearm vs. everything else? Didn't think so.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/pol...s-weeks-polls/

95% of Americans support background checks. Spin that one.

[soulflower]

Nearly 2/3's of Americans want stricter gun laws

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-productio...png?1357734301

[Mom49of4]

Unless there is a total gun confiscation stricter gun laws will not prevent another Sandy Hook.

[songfourone]

There are no absolutes in this world (minus the obvious one), nothing can prevent another Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, but stricter gun laws with make it more difficult to obtain guns without a through background check, no anonymous sale mandatory safety instruction, banning the bigger clips, and raising the minimums on gun use in the commission of a crime.

[Daan]

There are no absolutes in this world (minus the obvious one), nothing can prevent another Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, but stricter gun laws with make it more difficult to obtain guns without a through background check, no anonymous sale mandatory safety instruction, banning the bigger clips, and raising the minimums on gun use in the commission of a crime.

So let's pass some more law(s) that will do nothing to prevent these incidents. Brilliant!

At Columbine Klebold and Harris planted 20lb propane bombs in the cafeteria. Fortunately they failed to detonate. So pass another gun law?

The weapons used at Sandy Hook were legally purchased in a state with existing very tough gun laws. So pass another gun law?


The anti-gun fanatics just don't have a clue.

.

[Daan]

Where did I name call? And do you really want me to bring up statistics on murders committed by a firearm vs. everything else? Didn't think so.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/pol...s-weeks-polls/

95% of Americans support background checks. Spin that one.

They already exist.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...6_1_screen.pdf
Quote

Fact: In 2005, agencies reported 1,400 arrests of persons denied a firearm or permit; but the U.S. Department of Justice accepted only 135 of those denial cases for prosecution.(115) Given the poor performance of the Federal government in prosecuting felons identified by an instant background check trying to buy firearms, there is little to support firearm licensing as a crime prevention measure.

(115) Background Checks for Firearm Transfers 2005, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, November 2006

End Quote


So pass another gun law?


It will make the Liberal do-gooders feel gooood!

.

[Daan]

.

Laws affecting law abiding citizens do not solve the problem. Criminals are the problem and the current laws don't stop them.

So pass another gun law?

Fact: The Brady Bill is not enforced. In 2006, of 77,000 Field Office referrals for instant background check violations (25,259 of which NICS identified as buyers with felony records), 0.4% (273) were ever charged with a crime and 0.1% (73) were convicted. (Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2006, Regional Justice Information Service, study funded by Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.)

Fact: The Brady law has so far failed to appreciably save lives. (Dr. Jens Ludwig, Dr. Philip J. Cook, Journal of the American Medical Association, August 2000)

Fact: Violent crime started falling in 1991, three years before passage of the Brady law. The Brady law did not apply in 18 states, yet violent crime in those states fell just as quickly. (Gun Licensing Leads to Increased Crime, Lost Lives, Prof. John Lott, L.A. Times, Aug 23, 2000, based on both the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 1990s and the U.S. Justice Department Crime Victimization Survey)

.

[MDvet]

Where did I name call? And do you really want me to bring up statistics on murders committed by a firearm vs. everything else? Didn't think so.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/pol...s-weeks-polls/

95% of Americans support background checks. Spin that one.

In the past, slavery and segregation were supported by majority.

My two cents on the current gun control/violence reduction ideas - misguided and cosmetic. Similar to the 1994 assault weapons ban, some folks will be fooled to think that we took action, but no significant results.

Background Check all firearm purchases - It MIGHT reduce illegal purchases. Criminals will have to find better straw purchasers. A way to fix private sellers at gun show selling without background check is redefining private sellers. Usually, there is a set up fee at gun shows, so most "private sellers" at gun shows are not individual selling their gun collection. Iindividual selling a gun collection is a private sale but someone buying 10 of AK47 and selling them is a business. I think defining what constitutes privates sales is more about regulating commerce, not guns. So would it be too much burden of the gun show organizers to classify private sellers and "dealers." Of course this is too much work, so why not just make it harder on law abiding citizens.

What would you propose as a penalty for a private citizen selling his gun to his friend without a background check? What would be a mechanism to monitor private sales? Recently, I traded my gun with one of my friends. As law abiding citizens, we went to a State Police station, filled out the paperwork, paid our fees. If we didn’t, no government agency would have known that we traded our guns. A small chance if the gun gets stolen, it being traced back to traced back to us. Even if it gets traced back to us, what’s will be the crime and punishment. But as law abiding citizens, we follow the law to take time and money to report our trade.

Most of proposals are targeted against law abiding citizens. My gun purchases are not about any practical needs, just like a couple with no kids purchasing a 5 bedroom house or someone purchasing a F 350 to commute to work. We live in a country where we don’t have to justify certain things we do – why does Gore need several thousand square feet house that consumes same amount of electricity as several homes? Simple, he doesn’t have to explain it and he can pay for it.