Background checks and registering sales is "extreme"

[Gopher]

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

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

Here's the entire poll taken five days after the school shooting in Connecticut.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/am...pose-bans.aspx

Here are the questions:

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/1595...aws_121227.pdf

The second question indicates your claimed victory is not quite as decisive as you make it out to be. The question should have also asked respondents what they knew about current gun laws and the lack of enforcement thereof. I suspect that a majority wouldn't have a clue.

Doesn't look good for Ms. Feinstein's gun ban either. She fails on both the "assault weapon" and handgun ban. BTW, she sees no difference between semi-automatic handguns and machine guns. Black rifles are the smokescreen. The eventual ban on handguns is her goal.

I thought the question about requiring federally licensed dealers to undergo a background check at gun shows was interesting. It proves that most of the respondents have no clue as to what a federally licensed firearms dealer is or what it takes to become one. In order to engage in the business of selling firearms in this country, you must be federally licensed. (There are minor exceptions mostly dealing with antiques.) If there are licensees out there failing background checks at gun shows, or anywhere else, then there is a huge disconnect between the FBI and the ATF. There are laws already available to fix that problem and plenty of prison space to warehouse the troublemakers. No need for Congress to act because an assault weapons ban won't fix that. The only thing that needs to be done is for the Attorney General to instruct the FBI and the ATF to do their jobs.

[MDvet]

[QUOTE=Gopher;8246608]Here's the entire poll taken five days after the school shooting in Connecticut.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/am...pose-bans.aspx

Here are the questions:

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/1595...aws_121227.pdf

The polling data is not conculsive,

Yes, 58% want " laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict (question 5)

But, 74% answered "should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons" (question 6)

47% answered pass new laws, 46% answered enforce current more laws strictly

51% against "a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles"

62% favors "A law which would ban the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips that can contain more than 10 bullets"

So if we look at the polling result as a whole, Americans want more gun laws that they can't describe other than restirction on high capacity clips.

[soulflower]

I personally don't support outright banning guns but I agree with the majority of Americans that we need tougher gun laws and better enforcement...

[Daan]

I personally don't support outright banning guns but I agree with the majority of Americans that we need tougher gun laws and better enforcement...

Please tell us what you propose to prevent another Sandy Hook.

To keep repeating "tougher gun laws" and "better enforcement" is just vague and meaningless anti-gun hand wringing.

.

[Daan]

[QUOTE=MDvet;8246727]

Here's the entire poll taken five days after the school shooting in Connecticut.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/am...pose-bans.aspx

Here are the questions:

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/1595...aws_121227.pdf

The polling data is not conculsive,

Yes, 58% want " laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict (question 5)

But, 74% answered "should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons" (question 6)

47% answered pass new laws, 46% answered enforce current more laws strictly

51% against "a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles"

62% favors "A law which would ban the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips that can contain more than 10 bullets"

So if we look at the polling result as a whole, Americans want more gun laws that they can't describe other than restirction on high capacity clips.

I just wonder if those Americans realize how many millions of 15, 20, and 30 round magazines exist in private hands.

The only "restriction" that would have any effect would be a ban with a law to turn them in. Ain't gonna happen.

The anti-gun crusaders are using dead children to promote their draconian gun control that would not prevent another Sandy Hook.

They are entitled to do what they are doing no matter how disgusting.

.

[soultrain]

Polls, statistics, laws and talking heads are simply a diversion. The effect is political compromise that erodes our liberty, whatever the issue.

I have a right to keep and bear arms. This right is guaranteed (not granted) by the Constitution. I object to this right, or that of others, being infringed upon by anyone, whether they represent 2% or 99% of the population.

[soulflower]

Please tell us what you propose to prevent another Sandy Hook.

To keep repeating "tougher gun laws" and "better enforcement" is just vague and meaningless anti-gun hand wringing.

.

We've been over the specifics on policies dozens of times on this forum. I don't care to repeat myself over and over again.

I refuse to accept the idea that nothing short of banning guns can be done to reduce gun violence. There are policies that can work if implemented correctly.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[dsummoner]

I personally don't support outright banning guns but I agree with the majority of Americans that we need tougher gun laws and better enforcement...

The rights of the individual should not be subject to the whims of the dullard and emotively inclined mob.

[MDvet]

Please tell us what you propose to prevent another Sandy Hook.

To keep repeating "tougher gun laws" and "better enforcement" is just vague and meaningless anti-gun hand wringing.

.

First, regardless what we do we cannot prevent another Sandy Hook. We can lessen the chance.

Enforcement of existing criminal codes to keep violent criminals in prison longer (my favoriate example is an off duty cop shooting in Baltimore several years ago. The shooter were convicted of several violent cirmes but the judge went easy on him)"

Sharing of mental health record (i.e. The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report faulted university officials for failing to share information that would have shed light on the seriousness of Cho's problems, citing misinterpretations of federal privacy laws.[56][57] The report also pointed to failures by Virginia Tech's counseling center, flaws in Virginia's mental health laws, and inadequate state mental health services, but concluded that "Cho himself was the biggest impediment to stabilizing his mental health" in college.[1] The report also stated that the classification detail that Cho was to seek "outpatient" rather than "inpatient" treatment would generally have been legally interpreted at the time as not requiring that Cho be reported to Virginia's Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) and entered into the CCRE database of people prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. From Wiki)

Used the commerical clause, to clear define what constitutes private sale of firearms. I remember reading somewhere 40% of sales are fire arms are considered private (I don't think number is that high). Regardless, if the sale is not private, more scruinty.

If we can't enforce the exisitng laws, how can we reinforce new laws?

[Daan]

We've been over the specifics on policies dozens of times on this forum. I don't care to repeat myself over and over again.

I refuse to accept the idea that nothing short of banning guns can be done to reduce gun violence. There are policies that can work if implemented correctly.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Well since you're convinced, stop being vague and give specifics.

.

[Daan]

We've been over the specifics on policies dozens of times on this forum. I don't care to repeat myself over and over again.

Really?

So, with one who has been called "thick as a brick wall" and "dumb", you don't care to share those "specifics" because you claim they've been posted "dozens" of times".

Please, just one more time.

.

[Grindelwald]

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!

.

So why get rid of them? That's what you've been suggesting this whole thread.

.

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)

.

And what laws would those be? None exist right now.

[Grindelwald]

Polls, statistics, laws and talking heads are simply a diversion. The effect is political compromise that erodes our liberty, whatever the issue.

I have a right to keep and bear arms. This right is guaranteed (not granted) by the Constitution. I object to this right, or that of others, being infringed upon by anyone, whether they represent 2% or 99% of the population.

Yeah, who needs facts or rationality? 95% support background checks. At least most of America at least has some sanity.

[Daan]

So why get rid of them? That's what you've been suggesting this whole thread.

Stop lying. No where did I say to get rid of existing laws. I said we already have laws. Again, stop lying.

And what laws would those be? None exist right now.

I don't know. I keep asking you and your ilk for the specifics of the additional laws you and your ilk keep claiming are needed.

I repeat, stop lying.

.

[Grindelwald]

Stop lying. No where did I say to get rid of existing laws. I said we already have laws. Again, stop lying.


I don't know. I keep asking you and your ilk for the specifics of the additional laws you and your ilk keep claiming are needed.

I repeat, stop lying.

If you can't read, that's not my problem. Quit talking out of your arse, you've been arguing against background checks this whole thread, saying how useless they are, now all of the sudden you're fine with them? Keep babbling, you're making yourself look foolish.

[Daan]

If you can't read, that's not my problem. Quit talking out of your arse, you've been arguing against background checks this whole thread, saying how useless they are, now all of the sudden you're fine with them? Keep babbling, you're making yourself look foolish.

Stop lying.

I said criminals do not do background checks.

I guess your mommy didn't teach you not to lie?

.

[Grindelwald]

Back up, reverse, retreat.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Daan]

Back up, reverse, retreat.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Keep lying, it makes you look foolish.

.

[Daan]

Back up, reverse, retreat.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Keep lying, you look foolish.

.

[Grindelwald]

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...9&postcount=73

soultrain said background checks were unconstitutional and you agreed. Game, set, match. Go away.