Why are background checks such a nonstarter?

[johnpolitics]

Then let me run a background check on you. I don't need a reason. It is harmless. Right?

Employers run them. Its called google. I have nothing to hide.

[OldBay]

Employers run them. Its called google. I have nothing to hide.

I hope you don't believe that current firearms background checks are google searches.

[ms maggie]

Well, for starters, apparently it is you who cannot admit your mistake or apologize for false accusations.

Once again, specifically what is untrue about my post #175 or Daan's clear explanation to you in post 228 about why my post is correct?

"FWIW, you cannot legally travel to another state to buy a regulated firearm".

You can.

[soultrain]

Welcome to a pluralistic society. The Courts allow background checks. I appreciate that you object to them-- frankly I find yr view more honest than those who claim the system already does this consistently and hide behind that. While I disagree with you I respect your intellectual honesty.

Fair enough

[Jeebus]

"FWIW, you cannot legally travel to another state to buy a regulated firearm".

You can.

Again you demonstrate you complete ignorance when it comes to firearms laws.

You CANNOT travel to another state and legally purchase a regulated firearm in person, it MUST be shipped to a FFL in your home state.

You CAN purchase a non-regulated firearm in another state, but not a regulated firearm.

Please post where you are getting such bad information that continues to make you look even less intelligent than usually.

Some of us actually hold FFLs and know the laws.

[SoSad]

You are free to object, don't buy the gun. If I object to being patted down before I board a plane, nobody is forcing me to fly.

No rights are absolute, and the idea that somehow the right to bear arms, alone is absolute is absurd.

I think when we speak of a right in an Amendment, it holds more water than something like driving which is supposed to be a privilege.

With that being said, my views on guns can be viewed as wishy-washy at best.

[SemiAuto]

Employers run them. Its called google. I have nothing to hide.

They are not the government and you don't have to deal with them. Is there no longer any expectation of privacy from government busy bodies?

[johnpolitics]

They are not the government and you don't have to deal with them. Is there no longer any expectation of privacy from government busy bodies?

After 9/11 no. Remember we all paniced and wanted to feel safe so the Patriot Act was passed.

[Daan]

Clearly, you missed the memo?

There's nothing for me to object to. The gun folks are on the defensive, and will remain on the defensive as long as Obama is in the White House.

Enjoy the next 4 years. In the meantime, please don't come "unhinged" like so many of your compatriot's. Pace yourself. You are in for a long ride....

Not true. You object to the status quo.

It will be a long fight and it could end badly for all of us. And that will be on you and your ilk.

.

[ms maggie]

Not true. You object to the status quo.

It will be a long fight and it could end badly for all of us. And that will be on you and your ilk.

.

How could it end badly for all of us? Dark muttering threats are so laame, Daan.

[slapshot]

Not true. You object to the status quo.

It will be a long fight and it could end badly for all of us. And that will be on you and your ilk.

.

RE: "could end badly for all of us."

Ummmm, doubtful.

More laws, more restrictions may not make us any safer, but it will hardly impact the majority of Americans in a negative way (relative to the current status quo).

Or are you threatening some armed insurrection? That might be the response I would expect from the gun crazed, machismo right wing.

[Daan]

"FWIW, you cannot legally travel to another state to buy a regulated firearm".

You can.

You responded to OldBay's post#225 where it was stated:

"If a legal gun dealer in a neighboring state has a handgun that I would like to legally purchase, it must be first transferred to another FFL dealer in my state of MD - who conducts a background check. A waiting period also applies."

It's apparent that that was the real meaning of that post.

You simply stated "Not true" which unless you quallify what is "Not true", you are just playing childish word games.


If you want to claim that private gun sales are not subject to background checks, okay.

Then please tell us how a "universal" background check will be enforced and at what cost since it will have no effect on criminals and will not prevent another mass killing.

.

[Daan]

RE: "could end badly for all of us."

Ummmm, doubtful.

More laws, more restrictions may not make us any safer, but it will hardly impact the majority of Americans in a negative way (relative to the current status quo).

Or are you threatening some armed insurrection? That might be the response I would expect from the gun crazed, machismo right wing.

No threats from me. I'm just aware of what some other states are doing in response to an overreaching federal government.

I've posted the link about the seven or more states that have passed or have introduced legislation that they will not be subject to federal gun laws. And New Hamshire has taken it even further saying any one trying to enforce federal gun, ammo, etc. laws in New Hampshire will be committing a felony.

What's Obama going to do? That's my concern. When there is wide spread disobedience to stricter gun laws will Obama declare a national emergency and martial law? That's the bad ending I'm referring to.

The really crazed and irrational people are the anti-assault-weapon and universal background check types since they can't understand that the laws they want will not stop criminals from getting guns nor will it prevent another mass killing.

You should stop with the "right wing" canard. There are many Democrat elected representatives that will not support any more anti-gun-nutter legislation because they know it will cost them at the next election.

They still remember the price that was paid for the last AWB.

.

[georjec2]

And just think a few short months ago there were many posters to this forum and indeed throughout the blogosphere and media who would have only accepted DNA testing in order to cast a vote during the general election.

[skeemer]

I believe all, but one or two, were in response to your drivel.

What's more ironic - is that my initial comment about the irony of one poster making a critical comment about another poster's spelling mistake (while making a spelling mistake of their own) - my comment was not directed at you.

But I guess you felt compelled to interject yourself into a discussion that didn't involve you. Mr. Busybody.

Thanks for dropping by.

The 'irony' as you propose (again, you could stand a vocabulary refresher) is quite palpable as you fail to see your own participation in the 'spelling/grammar bee.'

You, good sir, are the height of comedic ripeness.

This has been fun, let's do it again sometime.

[songfourone]

And just think a few short months ago there were many posters to this forum and indeed throughout the blogosphere and media who would have only accepted DNA testing in order to cast a vote during the general election.

Thanks for the giggle

[ms maggie]

You responded to OldBay's post#225 where it was stated:

"If a legal gun dealer in a neighboring state has a handgun that I would like to legally purchase, it must be first transferred to another FFL dealer in my state of MD - who conducts a background check. A waiting period also applies."

It's apparent that that was the real meaning of that post.

You simply stated "Not true" which unless you quallify what is "Not true", you are just playing childish word games.


If you want to claim that private gun sales are not subject to background checks, okay.

Then please tell us how a "universal" background check will be enforced and at what cost since it will have no effect on criminals and will not prevent another mass killing.
.

How? The way it's done already in many states. How do you enforce it? Easy, you make it crime not to comply, and prosecute offenders. People will catch on pretty quickly.

[Jeebus]

How? The way it's done already in many states. How do you enforce it? Easy, you make it crime not to comply, and prosecute offenders. People will catch on pretty quickly.

It was already a crime for the private seller in NM to sell the regulated firearms to the out of state resident.

And it has been a crime to do so for 45 years.

I guess they're not "catching on too quickly" are they?

[Daan]

It was already a crime for the private seller in NM to sell the regulated firearms to the out of state resident.

And it has been a crime to do so for 45 years.

I guess they're not "catching on too quickly" are they?

Some people think that passing laws is the way to achieve a "Utopia".

What purpose is served by making law abiding citizens submit to background checks and registration?

It is absolutely no deterrent to criminals, will not stop criminals from getting guns, and it will not prevent another mass killing.

Crusades just give some people meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives.

.

[Jeebus]

Some people think that passing laws is the way to achieve a "Utopia".

What purpose is served by making law abiding citizens submit to background checks and registration?

It is absolutely no deterrent to criminals, will not stop criminals from getting guns, and it will not prevent another mass killing.

Crusades just give some people meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives.

.

But ms maggie wants to use examples that she thinks support her irrational fears, and when shown that the example does not support her hysteria, she never replies.

She wanted to use the case of some mental patient from PA who went to NM and bought a regulated firearm without a background check, which he used to shoot up a clinic in Pgh.

However, upon closer look we learn that the sale was already illegal under the GCA of 1968. The seller in NM illegally sold the two guns.

Does she actually think that a background check law (in addition to the laws already in place designed to prevent it) would have stopped the illegal sale?

The grab-nutters are desperate - they see the numbers, they know these measures are not going to get through the House. They'll resort to lies to support their hysteria, as we've seen all too often in this thread.