PDA

View Full Version : Criminal Background Checks on Private Firearm Sales


Pony Boy
02-04-2013, 09:54 AM
Let’s say a law is passed requiring private individuals to pass a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCS) when conducting a sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm.

1. Does that mean both the seller and buyer must pass background checks or just the buyer?

2. If we both pass the background check are we then allowed to proceed with the sale in private or will we be required to register the make model and serial number of the firearm with the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms)? Say, I decide that I want to sell a firearm that was passed on to me from my grandfather. Obviously the original sale of the firearm cannot be traced to my grandfather and certainly not to me so why would I bother with a background check of the buyer?

3. There are millions and millions of firearms in the United States that were sold legally before 1998 that are not registered with the ATF. Therefore the law requiring private sellers to pass background checks would almost be impossible to enforce unless all firearms were registered with the ATF.

4. So by passing this law would are we opening the door for the ATF to eventually require all firearms to be registered?


I think only a handful in congress would dare cross that line.

W*GS
02-04-2013, 10:06 AM
40% of sales don't go through the NICS.

Would we allow 40% of air travelers to bypass airport security?

peacepipe
02-04-2013, 10:09 AM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsGA4ossgrdc2HpEwLGEOd3EUKTHn6b 0e489ACbIOd-pEPHleINg

Pony Boy
02-04-2013, 11:02 AM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsGA4ossgrdc2HpEwLGEOd3EUKTHn6b 0e489ACbIOd-pEPHleINg

Please tell me how this law if passed would be enforced, you didn't answer any of the questions?

If a farmer buys a new shotgun and passes the NICS check and then goes home and sells his old shotgun to his neighbor over the back fence, how will the Feds find out that transaction takes place?

Pony Boy
02-04-2013, 11:09 AM
40% of sales don't go through the NICS.

Would we allow 40% of air travelers to bypass airport security?

Should we require all passengers to do a criminal background or mental illness check before they can purchase an airline ticket or would this be a violation of their civil rights? We could add everyone to the no-fly list until they pass a background check.

peacepipe
02-04-2013, 11:33 AM
Should we require all passengers to do a criminal background or mental illness check before they can purchase an airline ticket or would this be a violation of their civil rights? We could add everyone to the no-fly list until they pass a background check.

no,but all should go through security. just like all should get a BG check to buy a gun.

Pony Boy
02-04-2013, 12:22 PM
no,but all should go through security. just like all should get a BG check to buy a gun.

Everyone that buys a new gun from a licensed dealer does go through a background check, it's the law.

You haven't answered the question, how will the sale between two private individuals of a legally owned firearm be enforced if there are no records of that firearm in the ATF files.

Yes, this is a loophole and there no way out of it unless you require all firearms in the U.S. to be registered with the ATF, and I can see all the knuckle draggers with their pants down below their ass getting in line to register their stolen guns.

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 02:59 PM
no,but all should go through security. just like all should get a BG check to buy a gun.

I could handle that for guns. You have a valid passport, you go through a metal detector into the gun shop. It takes a few hours as they verify you aren't a felon in a database, then you buy your gun and walk out.

Going through airport security takes a couple hours at the most in my experience. Are you saying that is about what you want for people to have to wait to get their guns?

I heard one liberal on the radio saying if it takes 3 months to do a proper background check then a person should have to wait 3 months to buy a gun.

do you agree with that liberal? Would you consider a 3 month waiting period to be acceptable to check someones background?

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 03:00 PM
Should we require all passengers to do a criminal background or mental illness check before they can purchase an airline ticket or would this be a violation of their civil rights? We could add everyone to the no-fly list until they pass a background check.

Why are you trying to make it so Peace can't fly? Even crazy people deserve to go on vacation!

peacepipe
02-04-2013, 05:11 PM
I could handle that for guns. You have a valid passport, you go through a metal detector into the gun shop. It takes a few hours as they verify you aren't a felon in a database, then you buy your gun and walk out.

Going through airport security takes a couple hours at the most in my experience. Are you saying that is about what you want for people to have to wait to get their guns?

I heard one liberal on the radio saying if it takes 3 months to do a proper background check then a person should have to wait 3 months to buy a gun.

do you agree with that liberal? Would you consider a 3 month waiting period to be acceptable to check someones background?
BG checks are only 3 days,5 minutes if its a rifle. even the head of the NRA supported closing gun show loop holes & 100% BG checks. of course it was no problem then after columbine,but now after newtown its a problem.

peacepipe
02-04-2013, 05:13 PM
Everyone that buys a new gun from a licensed dealer does go through a background check, it's the law.

You haven't answered the question, how will the sale between two private individuals of a legally owned firearm be enforced if there are no records of that firearm in the ATF files.

Yes, this is a loophole and there no way out of it unless you require all firearms in the U.S. to be registered with the ATF, and I can see all the knuckle draggers with their pants down below their ass getting in line to register their stolen guns.

only people talking about a registry are you & that idoit lapierre. there is no registry being pushed so their is no point in debating it.

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 05:46 PM
I can't say i am against going through a reasonable background check. Thats it though nothing more peace? You are happy just with a background check for felonies right? This background check doesn't go into you went to a shrink once because you were depressed right? Its only based on felony convictions?

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 05:49 PM
Also though I understand the NRA fighting every inch. Thats the best way to do it in Washington DC nowdays. Fight over the background checks and let that take steam out of the assault weapons ban. Otherwise you say right off we agree to background checks, the anti gun crowd would go straight to the next level of their agenda.

You agree with that Peace don't you? That is NRA conceeded the background check the fight would still move on to the clip size, maybe assault weapons ban etc. Not like agreeing to the background check makes the fight end so there is no reason to support it at this point, not for the NRA.

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 05:55 PM
What i am asking peace is do you at least understand why the NRA fights so hard on every issue? its because they know the gun control crowd wants so much more then that. So you fight every issue to sap up the oppositions resources and time.

Immigration control, tax reform, N korea/Iran nuclear expansion, bad relationship with Russia, and a Palestinian still needed some sort of attention from Obama. Egypt a mess, Syria a mess, Libya a mess...hell they make the random bombing in Iraq seem like vacation. Syrians are going on vacation to Baghdad to get away from it all lol.

The NRA knows all of that these guys are not stupid. They turn 5 million members into a lot of money and use it well. They will target vulnerable dems and the vulnerable ones dont want to deal with too much NRA money going against them.

I think Obama only has so long to fight about guns. The NRA will fight tooth and nail right now on every issue to water down the final bill or outright defeat anything, leaving Obama to executive orders that could be overturned by Supreme Court if they went to far. In the end Obama is going to want to move on IMO.

Pony Boy
02-04-2013, 06:51 PM
I can't say i am against going through a reasonable background check. Thats it though nothing more peace? You are happy just with a background check for felonies right? This background check doesn't go into you went to a shrink once because you were depressed right? Its only based on felony convictions?

I don't have a problem with a background when purchasing from a firearm dealer. I bought a Ruger LCP 380 semi-automatic handgun from a licensed dealer about 3 months ago, they performed a background check, filled out 4473 form and I was out the door with the gun in 20 minutes.

The problem is Obama calling for universal background checks that would require background checks between private citizens. That would be impossible to enforce.

cutthemdown
02-04-2013, 09:59 PM
I do agree that private sales would be impossible to enforce. How could you stop a person from selling a gun the govt has no idea exists?

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 06:36 AM
I can't say i am against going through a reasonable background check. Thats it though nothing more peace? You are happy just with a background check for felonies right? This background check doesn't go into you went to a shrink once because you were depressed right? Its only based on felony convictions?

BG check should be no different than the BG checks 60% of gun buyers go through now.

hard to enforce murder charges if the state/gov. isnt aware of a murder. should we get rid of murder/manslaughter charges simply because they are not perfect in detering crime.

Pony Boy
02-05-2013, 06:40 AM
I do agree that private sales would be impossible to enforce. How could you stop a person from selling a gun the govt has no idea exists?

Yes it would be impossible to enforce background checks on private sales.
Firearm dealers are only required to keep a copy of the FFL 4473 form filled out by the buyer for 20 years. This form with the buyer’s information and firearm make, model and serial number are kept with the firearm dealer in a binder and the information is never given to the ATF unless requested in a criminal investigation.

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 09:12 AM
What i am asking peace is do you at least understand why the NRA fights so hard on every issue? its because they know the gun control crowd wants so much more then that. So you fight every issue to sap up the oppositions resources and time.

Immigration control, tax reform, N korea/Iran nuclear expansion, bad relationship with Russia, and a Palestinian still needed some sort of attention from Obama. Egypt a mess, Syria a mess, Libya a mess...hell they make the random bombing in Iraq seem like vacation. Syrians are going on vacation to Baghdad to get away from it all lol.

The NRA knows all of that these guys are not stupid. They turn 5 million members into a lot of money and use it well. They will target vulnerable dems and the vulnerable ones dont want to deal with too much NRA money going against them.

I think Obama only has so long to fight about guns. The NRA will fight tooth and nail right now on every issue to water down the final bill or outright defeat anything, leaving Obama to executive orders that could be overturned by Supreme Court if they went to far. In the end Obama is going to want to move on IMO.

I understand completely why NRA leadership fights so hard,it is how they make their money from gun manufacturers,who are the ones the NRA really represent.
Theres nothing obama has done that SCOTUS will overturn,even if a AR ban(not going to happen) is passed through congress.

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 09:14 AM
Yes it would be impossible to enforce background checks on private sales. Firearm dealers are only required to keep a copy of the FFL 4473 form filled out by the buyer for 20 years. This form with the buyer’s information and firearm make, model and serial number are kept with the firearm dealer in a binder and the information is never given to the ATF unless requested in a criminal investigation.

yeah,but if a criminal who would have failed a BG check,then goes and kills someone,said seller can be held liable for that sale.

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 10:09 AM
I understand completely why NRA leadership fights so hard,it is how they make their money from gun manufacturers,who are the ones the NRA really represent.
Theres nothing obama has done that SCOTUS will overturn,even if a AR ban(not going to happen) is passed through congress.

Well Obama hasn't done anything yet to get overturned so that is a moot point.

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 10:33 AM
Well Obama hasn't done anything yet to get overturned so that is a moot point.

he did sign 23 executive actions on this issue.

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 10:35 AM
Well Obama hasn't done anything yet to get overturned so that is a moot point.

so lets say a AR ban were to get passed,along with limits on clip capacities. does it overturned?

Pony Boy
02-05-2013, 12:44 PM
yeah,but if a criminal who would have failed a BG check,then goes and kills someone,said seller can be held liable for that sale.

Before 1998 the only thing the ATF required a licensed firearm dealer to do was verify the buyer had valid identification and that he answered no to all the questions on 4473 form. That form released the seller from any responsibility related to buyer’s use of the firearm in any criminal activity.

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 12:45 PM
so lets say a AR ban were to get passed,along with limits on clip capacities. does it overturned?

If Congress passed it no it would be perfectly fine most likely. By executive order they might though. They dont want a precedent where presidents just bypass congress all the time.

Would you really want your President to have that much power peace?

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 12:48 PM
If Congress passed it no it would be perfectly fine most likely. By executive order they might though. They dont want a precedent where presidents just bypass congress all the time.

Would you really want your President to have that much power peace?

Obama stated very clearly that he could not ban ARs by executive order/action,& that it needed to go through congress. so it is a moot point.

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 12:49 PM
Before 1998 the only thing the ATF required a licensed firearm dealer to do was verify the buyer had valid identification and that he answered no to all the questions on 4473 form. That form released the seller from any responsibility related to buyer’s use of the firearm in any criminal activity.

maybe so,but it is 2013 not 1997.

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 12:50 PM
Just make the penalty for felons with firearms to be like 15 yrs in prison. Trying to go after the sellers just hurts the economy even more. Liberals are like pirhanna picking at the economy. Its not just one policy its all of them added up that sap our revenue stream.

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 12:54 PM
Just make the penalty for felons with firearms to be like 15 yrs in prison. Trying to go after the sellers just hurts the economy even more. Liberals are like pirhanna picking at the economy. Its not just one policy its all of them added up that sap our revenue stream.

thats stupid,so by your logic I can buy an AR,turn around and sell it to a known criminal or terrorist & not suffer any repecuusions cause it might hurt the economy. you are reaching.

peacepipe
02-05-2013, 12:58 PM
if a criminal or terrorist is going the route of buying a gun without a BG check,it highly likely he is doing so to commit a crime that carries a heavier sentence. I doubt he is gonna give a ****,if buying a gun carries a longer sentence.

errand
02-05-2013, 05:08 PM
of course it was no problem then after columbine,but now after newtown its a problem.

So if they implemented the law after Columbine , how come it didn't prevent Sandy Hook?

you do realize the owner of the guns used wasn't the shooter right?

errand
02-05-2013, 05:17 PM
I don't have a problem with a background when purchasing from a firearm dealer. I bought a Ruger LCP 380 semi-automatic handgun from a licensed dealer about 3 months ago, they performed a background check, filled out 4473 form and I was out the door with the gun in 20 minutes.

The problem is Obama calling for universal background checks that would require background checks between private citizens. That would be impossible to enforce.

I'm still waiting for the liberals to come up with their plan for keeping guns out of a criminal's hand. Because as always, criminals don't follow laws....hence the name "criminals".....

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/539563_430665847015652_1392997325_n.jpg

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 05:34 PM
thats stupid,so by your logic I can buy an AR,turn around and sell it to a known criminal or terrorist & not suffer any repecuusions cause it might hurt the economy. you are reaching.

Not at all I am all for prosecutions of people who knowingly transfer them to a felon. I am saying if that person lies about it its not the sellers crime.

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 05:37 PM
if a criminal or terrorist is going the route of buying a gun without a BG check,it highly likely he is doing so to commit a crime that carries a heavier sentence. I doubt he is gonna give a ****,if buying a gun carries a longer sentence.

So you are saying laws about owning a gun really only apply to law abiding citizens because criminals don't care? Wow what a theory. You are finally understanding why we are against laws about guns. They only apply to non criminals because like you said, criminals do not care.

That One Guy
02-05-2013, 06:05 PM
All they really need to do is say if someone sells a gun to someone who was not legally allowed to own a gun, they're susceptible to punishment. Make any gun dealer required to do background checks on the individual for a very low cost ($5 or something) - the gun involved should not even be a consideration. There'd be no gun records but everyone could ensure crazies or felons aren't buying a gun within the law.

That fits the requirements, right?

myMind
02-05-2013, 06:23 PM
Should we require all passengers to do a criminal background or mental illness check before they can purchase an airline ticket or would this be a violation of their civil rights? We could add everyone to the no-fly list until they pass a background check.

Do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

errand
02-05-2013, 06:43 PM
Do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

No they shouldn't....and they shouldn't own guns either. but pray tell how many felons do you know that actually follow the laws of this nation? If they did, they wouldn't be felons, right?

Pony Boy
02-05-2013, 07:27 PM
All they really need to do is say if someone sells a gun to someone who was not legally allowed to own a gun, they're susceptible to punishment. Make any gun dealer required to do background checks on the individual for a very low cost ($5 or something) - the gun involved should not even be a consideration. There'd be no gun records but everyone could ensure crazies or felons aren't buying a gun within the law.

That fits the requirements, right?

The gun dealer is a private businessman, how do you justify making him do a background check for a fee of $5.00? Would you allow the government to walk into your work place and tell you what you are gong to do and how much you will charge?

Does the seller have to do a background check also or just the buyer. The seller could be a criminal selling a firearm to a law abiding citizen, is that ok?

That One Guy
02-05-2013, 07:54 PM
The gun dealer is a private businessman, how do you justify making him do a background check for a fee of $5.00? Would you allow the government to walk into your work place and tell you what you are gong to do and how much you will charge?

Does the seller have to do a background check also or just the buyer. The seller could be a criminal selling a firearm to a law abiding citizen, is that ok?

Make it a requirement that if you want the privilege to be able to conduct your own background checks, you have to be willing to do them at a reasonable cost. Allowing there to be a call center where you can just call in and get them done for free would be sufficient as well but then you'd have the issue of false IDs if people don't have a means to check. Another option would be to make the police station do them. Either way, not enough firearms are trading hands everyday to make it a monsterous burden. If that's really what holds it up, someone's just crying.

And the seller is either allowed to have a firearm or he isn't. If he isn't, it's up to him to decide if he wants to assume the risk of selling a firearm without the check or to go get the check and risk getting in trouble. I guess I don't really understand the issue here. If I were selling, I'd definitely want to get my name recorded as having checked the buyer's information on that particular day so as to ensure it was a legal transaction when it occurred and no repercussions could later come of it.

Again, not sure I really understand your issue on this one. If you're buying from a criminal, it'd also not hurt to have both people's name registered for the day the checks occurred so if the gun ever got traced back to trouble, you could point a finger at someone and establish the time frame in which you possessed it. Again, the gun info wouldn't be recorded anywhere but it's provide a means for everyone to keep themselves covered and it'd introduce a protection against someone escaping the looneybin and gathering an arsenal.

Pony Boy
02-05-2013, 07:55 PM
Do you think felons should be allowed to vote?

If a mentally ill person can't pass a background check to purchase a firearm, should they be able to vote? There is a difference between mentally ill and mentally incompetent so where do you draw the line?

Pony Boy
02-05-2013, 08:21 PM
Make it a requirement that if you want the privilege to be able to conduct your own background checks, you have to be willing to do them at a reasonable cost. Allowing there to be a call center where you can just call in and get them done for free would be sufficient as well but then you'd have the issue of false IDs if people don't have a means to check. Another option would be to make the police station do them. Either way, not enough firearms are trading hands everyday to make it a monsterous burden. If that's really what holds it up, someone's just crying.

And the seller is either allowed to have a firearm or he isn't. If he isn't, it's up to him to decide if he wants to assume the risk of selling a firearm without the check or to go get the check and risk getting in trouble. I guess I don't really understand the issue here. If I were selling, I'd definitely want to get my name recorded as having checked the buyer's information on that particular day so as to ensure it was a legal transaction when it occurred and no repercussions could later come of it.

Again, not sure I really understand your issue on this one. If you're buying from a criminal, it'd also not hurt to have both people's name registered for the day the checks occurred so if the gun ever got traced back to trouble, you could point a finger at someone and establish the time frame in which you possessed it. Again, the gun info wouldn't be recorded anywhere but it's provide a means for everyone to keep themselves covered and it'd introduce a protection against someone escaping the looneybin and gathering an arsenal.


If you want to force someone to do background checks at a low fee or for free then have it done at the local police station.

My point is background checks betweeen private citizens would be impossible to enforce and if they do occur, it will only be done between law abing private citizens that have nothing to hide.

peacepipe
02-06-2013, 05:40 AM
Gun dealers must be complete idiots, I would assume a gun dealer would be smart enough to include the cost of a BG check in the price of the gun.

That One Guy
02-06-2013, 06:01 AM
If you want to force someone to do background checks at a low fee or for free then have it done at the local police station.

My point is background checks betweeen private citizens would be impossible to enforce and if they do occur, it will only be done between law abing private citizens that have nothing to hide.

We all know nothing is really going to change if a person is committed to their plan. However, if they want to be able to say something changed then they could at least stop law abiding citizens from unknowingly selling to felons or crazies. I don't think It's really necessary and won't have major impacts but if it'll make the gun talk go away, it could be much worse.

barryr
02-06-2013, 06:47 AM
The places where these latest mass shootings happened already have the strictest guns laws, yet some believe there can somehow be more? If a bad person wants to do harm, they will find a way and abiding by gun laws is hardly on top of their "to do" list. If the imbecile in the WH would do more about the borders, then maybe, just maybe that would help just in itself. What good is making more gun laws when guns can be funneled through our borders other than ensuring the criminals have the majority of them? It would be nice for the self appointed gun patrol crowd to think just a little more outside of the box for a change.

Pony Boy
02-06-2013, 06:53 AM
Gun dealers must be complete idiots, I would assume a gun dealer would be smart enough to include the cost of a BG check in the price of the gun.

Wakeup and smell the coffee........ We were not talking about gun dealers and background checks on firearms they sell, we were talking about a dealer being forced to do a background check on a sale between 2 private citizens for a low fee.

peacepipe
02-06-2013, 07:35 AM
Wakeup and smell the coffee........ We were not talking about gun dealers and background checks on firearms they sell, we were talking about a dealer being forced to do a background check on a sale between 2 private citizens for a low fee.

The fee is low,in some states its free, for example in Alaska there is no charge at all for BG check. It doesn't cost much at all to do a BG check.

peacepipe
02-06-2013, 07:38 AM
The places where these latest mass shootings happened already have the strictest guns laws, yet some believe there can somehow be more? If a bad person wants to do harm, they will find a way and abiding by gun laws is hardly on top of their "to do" list. If the imbecile in the WH would do more about the borders, then maybe, just maybe that would help just in itself. What good is making more gun laws when guns can be funneled through our borders other than ensuring the criminals have the majority of them? It would be nice for the self appointed gun patrol crowd to think just a little more outside of the box for a change.

Lol,by your own logic,why do anything to secure the border. You're never going to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

BroncoInferno
02-06-2013, 08:33 AM
Lol,by your own logic,why do anything to secure the border. You're never going to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

LOL, yeah, barryr an idiot as always. Why have any laws at all? After all, the criminals won't follow them! ROFL!

barryr
02-06-2013, 03:25 PM
LOL, yeah, barryr an idiot as always. Why have any laws at all? After all, the criminals won't follow them! ROFL!

It doesn't take long for the liberals who to turn any forum they are of the majority into a bore like they have done around here. The usual name calling, ad hominem attacks of posters, pretending they are judge and jury of facts, and then wonder why no one is interested in "discussing" anything with them. No wonder they can't make it in radio since they put people to sleep. Great work.

barryr
02-06-2013, 03:29 PM
Lol,by your own logic,why do anything to secure the border. You're never going to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

Then by that logic, no reason to have Homeland Security since that is its job or drones killing people, which noticeably Obama supporters have stopped worrying about innocent people getting killed in any crossfires.

BroncoBeavis
02-06-2013, 03:31 PM
Lol,by your own logic,why do anything to secure the border. You're never going to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

Don't you guys use that argument all the time?

peacepipe
02-06-2013, 04:31 PM
So if they implemented the law after Columbine , how come it didn't prevent Sandy Hook?

you do realize the owner of the guns used wasn't the shooter right?

They didn't implement them then,I merely stated a fact that the NRA supported universal BG checks after columbine,closing gun show loop holes,etc.

orinjkrush
02-06-2013, 06:48 PM
if we just did a national biometric ID, this and a lot of other problems would just go away.

we already have: drivers licenses; social security cards, credit cards, concealed weapons cards, medical coverage cards, grocery cards, debit cards, store cards, gift cards, company IDs, passports, etc. etc.

just do it already. either that or barcode us.

ant1999e
02-06-2013, 07:18 PM
:wave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTyoppK_aDM

ant1999e
02-06-2013, 07:21 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TTyoppK_aDM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

peacepipe
02-07-2013, 11:25 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TTyoppK_aDM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

the if it isnt perfect,it shouldnt be done line of thinking. I guess we should get rid of speed limits,since people still speed. get rid of stop signs, why not decriminalize murder,child molestation and the like while we are at it. we got laws against those things and people are still getting murdered, and kids are still getting molested.

lonestar
02-07-2013, 12:12 PM
Should we require all passengers to do a criminal background or mental illness check before they can purchase an airline ticket or would this be a violation of their civil rights? We could add everyone to the no-fly list until they pass a background check.

As far as I'm concerned nobama has no need to know who I buy from or sell to in a private sale.

And the odds of them getting my makes, models or serial numbers are slim and not a ****ing chance.

lonestar
02-07-2013, 12:15 PM
if we just did a national biometric ID, this and a lot of other problems would just go away.

we already have: drivers licenses; social security cards, credit cards, concealed weapons cards, medical coverage cards, grocery cards, debit cards, store cards, gift cards, company IDs, passports, etc. etc.

just do it already. either that or barcode us.

Yep just like hitler did.

Does anyone else see where this is all going.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 02:20 PM
Do you crazy liberals support this :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/07/colorado-democrats-want-gun-sellers-manufacturers-held-liable-for-crimes/

How liberal are you guys? Would you support holding the gun manufacturer liable? If not then you have some crazies in colo the need to be voted out of state office. Hell Colorado is as crazy as California now. Congrats.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 02:21 PM
the if it isnt perfect,it shouldnt be done line of thinking. I guess we should get rid of speed limits,since people still speed. get rid of stop signs, why not decriminalize murder,child molestation and the like while we are at it. we got laws against those things and people are still getting murdered, and kids are still getting molested.

Stop signs actually save lives. Speed limits could be lowered though to save more lives. How fast do you think is safe peace? Because if Obama and the liberals said a study showed driving 50 and under saved lives and we should do it, and it cools the earth, you would be all over it. You will go along with whatever the liberal agenda is.

ant1999e
02-07-2013, 06:20 PM
the if it isnt perfect,it shouldnt be done line of thinking. I guess we should get rid of speed limits,since people still speed. get rid of stop signs, why not decriminalize murder,child molestation and the like while we are at it. we got laws against those things and people are still getting murdered, and kids are still getting molested.

And we should make murder illegal. Stupid argument. How about we ban cars?

lonestar
02-08-2013, 12:37 AM
And we should make murder illegal. Stupid argument. How about we ban cars?

Yet the far left loonies will never truly understand, the simple fact it does not matter to criminals or lunatics they are going to do what they do with or without a gun..

Only way to stop them is lock them up. Criminals in jail, the nut jobs in the statehouse, governors mansions, congress and the white house.

BroncoInferno
02-08-2013, 05:46 AM
And we should make murder illegal. Stupid argument.

No, he's pointing out the utter stupidity of the argument foisted by the gun nuts, i.e. gun control laws are pointless because it won't stop criminals from getting guns. You can apply that same ridiculous logic to any type of crime, which was his point.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2013, 07:39 AM
No, he's pointing out the utter stupidity of the argument foisted by the gun nuts, i.e. gun control laws are pointless because it won't stop criminals from getting guns. You can apply that same ridiculous logic to any type of crime, which was his point.

The popular way to think of it in most cases (like murder, theft, etc) is "My rights end where yours begin." Many laws can be rationalized that way. But you're stretching it into "Our rights end where 1 person in 300,000,000 might abuse them" You're punishing everyone in an attempt to preempt very few.

Random police search and seizure would "save" far more lives than an assault rifle ban, background checks, or magazine restrictions. Police generally know lots of bad dudes, and where they live. Problem is they often can't prove anything in court because the 4th amendment protects both good guys and bad guys from police intrusion without evidence.

Why don't we introduce a little bit of random police search and seizure? For the children.

The fact of the matter is the 4th amendment (like the 2nd) exists because our Constitution envisioned times when government could not be trusted.

BroncoInferno
02-08-2013, 07:51 AM
The popular way to think of it in most cases (like murder, theft, etc) is "My rights end where yours begin." Many laws can be rationalized that way. But you're stretching it into "Our rights end where 1 person in 300,000,000 might abuse them" You're punishing everyone in an attempt to preempt very few.

Random police search and seizure would "save" far more lives than an assault rifle ban, background checks, or magazine restrictions. Police generally know lots of bad dudes, and where they live. Problem is they often can't prove anything in court because the 4th amendment protects both good guys and bad guys from police intrusion without evidence.

Why don't we introduce a little bit of random police search and seizure? For the children.

The fact of the matter is the 4th amendment (like the 2nd) exists because our Constitution envisioned times when government could not be trusted.

Now you're just making straw man arguments. People propose common-sense backgroud checks (something an overwhelming majority of NRA members support, by the way), and we're just slight fey hop away from legalizing random search and seizures. I'm not terribly swayed by paranoid slippery-slope arguments.

BroncoBeavis
02-08-2013, 08:00 AM
Now you're just making straw man arguments. People propose common-sense backgroud checks (something an overwhelming majority of NRA members support, by the way), and we're just slight fey hop away from legalizing random search and seizures. I'm not terribly swayed by paranoid slippery-slope arguments.

Funny, but I've heard you say "Gun control laws" but I haven't seen you say you wanted it restricted to just a few more background checks.

Do you oppose the "assault" (aka mean looking) weapons ban proposal and cartridge capacity restrictions Obama proposed?

ant1999e
02-08-2013, 09:37 AM
No, he's pointing out the utter stupidity of the argument foisted by the gun nuts, i.e. gun control laws are pointless because it won't stop criminals from getting guns. You can apply that same ridiculous logic to any type of crime, which was his point.

Utter stupidity is creating laws that the creator admits will not prevent the CRIME they were created to prevent.

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 07:34 AM
While lawbreakers ignore all these restrictions and do what they want with impunity.

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 07:37 AM
Do you crazy liberals support this :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/07/colorado-democrats-want-gun-sellers-manufacturers-held-liable-for-crimes/

How liberal are you guys? Would you support holding the gun manufacturer liable? If not then you have some crazies in colo the need to be voted out of state office. Hell Colorado is as crazy as California now. Congrats.

Libs have both houses in Colorado right now and they're in full pander mode, pushing things which the voters have already turned down in recent elections. This state HAS gone nuts.

As far as gun manufacturer liability, then let's sue the government for building roads murderers escape on.

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 07:39 AM
the if it isnt perfect,it shouldnt be done line of thinking. I guess we should get rid of speed limits,since people still speed. get rid of stop signs, why not decriminalize murder,child molestation and the like while we are at it. we got laws against those things and people are still getting murdered, and kids are still getting molested.

Why not? It's why the left and moonbat libertarians say we should legalize drugs.

The gun issue is a more complex one on the matter of Constitutional rights. "Mass shootings" are extremely rare and are being exploited by the media and politicians to push an anti-gun Left agenda. There's no escaping this basic fact.

Dukes
02-09-2013, 07:49 AM
Still haven't heard a solution beyond complete confiscation that will keep criminals and nutjobs from getting guns from anyone on the left.

lonestar
02-09-2013, 03:19 PM
If a mentally ill person can't pass a background check to purchase a firearm, should they be able to vote? There is a difference between mentally ill and mentally incompetent so where do you draw the line?

Whoa there, being logical is against OM policy.

lonestar
02-09-2013, 03:23 PM
Do you crazy liberals support this :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/07/colorado-democrats-want-gun-sellers-manufacturers-held-liable-for-crimes/

How liberal are you guys? Would you support holding the gun manufacturer liable? If not then you have some crazies in colo the need to be voted out of state office. Hell Colorado is as crazy as California now. Congrats.

With all the far left liberals that moved out of California because of its taxes, insane housing costs, cost of living and their jobs being moved out, most came to Colorado.


So it is now just west coast east.

Ahahahahahahaha

lonestar
02-09-2013, 03:27 PM
The popular way to think of it in most cases (like murder, theft, etc) is "My rights end where yours begin." Many laws can be rationalized that way. But you're stretching it into "Our rights end where 1 person in 300,000,000 might abuse them" You're punishing everyone in an attempt to preempt very few.

Random police search and seizure would "save" far more lives than an assault rifle ban, background checks, or magazine restrictions. Police generally know lots of bad dudes, and where they live. Problem is they often can't prove anything in court because the 4th amendment protects both good guys and bad guys from police intrusion without evidence.

Why don't we introduce a little bit of random police search and seizure? For the children.

The fact of the matter is the 4th amendment (like the 2nd) exists because our Constitution envisioned times when government could not be trusted.

I'm glad someone actually brought some sanity to the thread.

lonestar
02-09-2013, 03:30 PM
Libs have both houses in Colorado right now and they're in full pander mode, pushing things which the voters have already turned down in recent elections. This state HAS gone nuts.

As far as gun manufacturer liability, then let's sue the government for building roads murderers escape on.

How about sue them for creating and maintaining (or not) roads that speeders and drink drivers kill folks.

We all know that is where the Lawyers will be going ..

That One Guy
02-09-2013, 03:54 PM
A few crazies have ruined this thread. Congrats.

Just a note: No one wants to stand in the middle of a circle jerk.