Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts

[BULLDOG]

No, given your explanation for MB's being gunned down, I would like for you to explain how the guy parks his truck facing the doors, has a conversation with the officer where he presumably told him not to do it, drove the truck into the lobby, backed up, gunned the engine again, then emerged from the truck, did not stop and render aid and began to walk back to the officers potentially armed and obviously a criminal.

Did he attack the officers? Did he endanger people in the area? Do you want them to shoot him? They seem to get into trouble when they shoot people these days….

Yes he endangered the people in the area. You didn't watch the video?

background checks and registration are not the same thing.

Background checks that are universal require gun registration…registration has always been the first step in banning and confiscating weapons…it happened in France, Germany, Britain and Australia…we know the history and the technique...

In order to do universal background checks you have to know who originally possessed the gun before the background checks went into law…other wise people can simply get around it, again, by saying Oh Yeah…I always owned this gun…….

All background checks are easily avoided by criminals, they steal the guns, or the get someone with a clean record to buy the gun for them…therefore background checks are pointless if you want to stop criminals from getting guns or mass shooters from getting guns…what they do…they give you control over law abiding gun owners and gives you an opportunity to catch them in a felony for failing to paperwork properly……

I

No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration. Still acting like you actually believe someone is going to go door to door taking guns. What an idiot.

No…you are wrong. We already have federally mandated background checks for all gun purchases at gun stores and gun shows….that isn't enough for the gun grabbers. They want to mandate universal background checks for all transactions of guns….private sales as well as lending guns to relatives and friends and using guns in actual shooting classes….

So….in order to make universal background checks useful for private sales….you need to know who owns what guns, so when you find someone with a gun, you can know if they actually own that gun…and if they went through a private sale, if that sale had a background check attacked to it, otherwise they can just say, I have always owned this gun……

It defeats the entire purpose of mandating universal background checks for private sales if you don't register all guns….that is why they are pushing universal background checks.

As has been demonstrated by history, in Britain, France, Germany, and Australia….and New York and California….you have to register all guns before you ban them.

You're wrong. Which federal law mandates background checks at gun shows for the independent seller who happens to have a booth? That law doesn't exist. The federal background checks for gun dealers that we do have are not gun registration. They are only background checks. You are imagining something that doesn't exist. Universal registration is not the issue, if it ever is, then you can fight that,

You don't understand…..any federally licensed gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check right now….today…..an individual who sets up a booth is not a licensed gun dealer….

The gun grabbers want to force individual sellers……that means if I sell my gun to my brother, then I would have to go and get a background check on my brother before I sell him a .22 bolt action rifle………and in order to regulate that sale with a background check, they will need to know that 1) I originally owned the gun and 2) I sold the gun….

Without registration my brother can simply say he always owned the gun after I sell it to him……

Fighting pointless…useless, universal background checks is fighting universal registration….

It would also mean that you could legally sell that same gun to any thug who could never buy one from a dealer. Quit trying to change the subject. Which federal law closes the gun show loophole, and why would background checks for individuals require registration when dealer sales don't?

 

[2aguy]

No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration.

Universal background checks do, else there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

Are guns federally required to be registered when purchasing from a gun dealer?

Irrelevant to my point.

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

Because right now we already have background checks at gun stores and gun shows…….any purchase has to go through a background check…the gun store fills out the paperwork showing the background check was done……

If I sell a gun to my aunt, there is currently no paperwork to show a background check was done on that sale. That is what the gun grabbers want to do..they want background checks on all private sales, including when I sell a gun to my aunt.

The reasons for this are many, including setting up a felony trap for the both of us…if they pass universal background checks and I sell a gun to my aunt without one…we are now both felons, and they can take our money, our guns and our freedom….

The only way to know if a background check was done, is to register all guns. Otherwise, I sell my gun to my aunt, and if any police asks she simply tells them she always owned it……

With a universal background check, if they don't register the guns they can't know….once they register the guns, they will know I am the owner of the gun, if they find my aunt with the gun by checking the serial number they can ask if a background check was done…and look up the paperwork..if not…again, we are both now felons over a clerical error….exactly what the gun grabbers want.

 

[2aguy]

Did he attack the officers? Did he endanger people in the area? Do you want them to shoot him? They seem to get into trouble when they shoot people these days….

Yes he endangered the people in the area. You didn't watch the video?

Background checks that are universal require gun registration…registration has always been the first step in banning and confiscating weapons…it happened in France, Germany, Britain and Australia…we know the history and the technique...

In order to do universal background checks you have to know who originally possessed the gun before the background checks went into law…other wise people can simply get around it, again, by saying Oh Yeah…I always owned this gun…….

All background checks are easily avoided by criminals, they steal the guns, or the get someone with a clean record to buy the gun for them…therefore background checks are pointless if you want to stop criminals from getting guns or mass shooters from getting guns…what they do…they give you control over law abiding gun owners and gives you an opportunity to catch them in a felony for failing to paperwork properly……

I

No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration. Still acting like you actually believe someone is going to go door to door taking guns. What an idiot.

No…you are wrong. We already have federally mandated background checks for all gun purchases at gun stores and gun shows….that isn't enough for the gun grabbers. They want to mandate universal background checks for all transactions of guns….private sales as well as lending guns to relatives and friends and using guns in actual shooting classes….

So….in order to make universal background checks useful for private sales….you need to know who owns what guns, so when you find someone with a gun, you can know if they actually own that gun…and if they went through a private sale, if that sale had a background check attacked to it, otherwise they can just say, I have always owned this gun……

It defeats the entire purpose of mandating universal background checks for private sales if you don't register all guns….that is why they are pushing universal background checks.

As has been demonstrated by history, in Britain, France, Germany, and Australia….and New York and California….you have to register all guns before you ban them.

You're wrong. Which federal law mandates background checks at gun shows for the independent seller who happens to have a booth? That law doesn't exist. The federal background checks for gun dealers that we do have are not gun registration. They are only background checks. You are imagining something that doesn't exist. Universal registration is not the issue, if it ever is, then you can fight that,

You don't understand…..any federally licensed gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check right now….today…..an individual who sets up a booth is not a licensed gun dealer….

The gun grabbers want to force individual sellers……that means if I sell my gun to my brother, then I would have to go and get a background check on my brother before I sell him a .22 bolt action rifle………and in order to regulate that sale with a background check, they will need to know that 1) I originally owned the gun and 2) I sold the gun….

Without registration my brother can simply say he always owned the gun after I sell it to him……

Fighting pointless…useless, universal background checks is fighting universal registration….

It would also mean that you could legally sell that same gun to any thug who could never buy one from a dealer. Quit trying to change the subject. Which federal law closes the gun show loophole, and why would background checks for individuals require registration when dealer sales don't?

That thug simply has someone with a clean background check buy the gun right now, under current background checks and any future universal checks. There is no gun show loophole…..licensed gun dealers have to do background checks…individual sellers at gun shows or in their front yard do not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration.

Universal background checks do, else there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

Are guns federally required to be registered when purchasing from a gun dealer?

Irrelevant to my point.

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law regarding background checks when selling a gun.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes he endangered the people in the area. You didn't watch the video?
No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration. Still acting like you actually believe someone is going to go door to door taking guns. What an idiot.

No…you are wrong. We already have federally mandated background checks for all gun purchases at gun stores and gun shows….that isn't enough for the gun grabbers. They want to mandate universal background checks for all transactions of guns….private sales as well as lending guns to relatives and friends and using guns in actual shooting classes….

So….in order to make universal background checks useful for private sales….you need to know who owns what guns, so when you find someone with a gun, you can know if they actually own that gun…and if they went through a private sale, if that sale had a background check attacked to it, otherwise they can just say, I have always owned this gun……

It defeats the entire purpose of mandating universal background checks for private sales if you don't register all guns….that is why they are pushing universal background checks.

As has been demonstrated by history, in Britain, France, Germany, and Australia….and New York and California….you have to register all guns before you ban them.

You're wrong. Which federal law mandates background checks at gun shows for the independent seller who happens to have a booth? That law doesn't exist. The federal background checks for gun dealers that we do have are not gun registration. They are only background checks. You are imagining something that doesn't exist. Universal registration is not the issue, if it ever is, then you can fight that,

You don't understand…..any federally licensed gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check right now….today…..an individual who sets up a booth is not a licensed gun dealer….

The gun grabbers want to force individual sellers……that means if I sell my gun to my brother, then I would have to go and get a background check on my brother before I sell him a .22 bolt action rifle………and in order to regulate that sale with a background check, they will need to know that 1) I originally owned the gun and 2) I sold the gun….

Without registration my brother can simply say he always owned the gun after I sell it to him……

Fighting pointless…useless, universal background checks is fighting universal registration….

It would also mean that you could legally sell that same gun to any thug who could never buy one from a dealer. Quit trying to change the subject. Which federal law closes the gun show loophole, and why would background checks for individuals require registration when dealer sales don't?

That thug simply has someone with a clean background check buy the gun right now, under current background checks and any future universal checks. There is no gun show loophole…..licensed gun dealers have to do background checks…individual sellers at gun shows or in their front yard do not.

Doesn't stand up to logic. Answer my questions. Federal law requires background checks for dealer sales without registration. What would be different about individual background checks that would require registration? And what federal law prevents unchecked gun sales at gun shows.? These are two things that you have repeatedly said, but never backed up.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration.

Universal background checks do, else there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

Are guns federally required to be registered when purchasing from a gun dealer?

Irrelevant to my point.

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

A record of transfer is a completely different subject. Only an idiot would sell a gun to anybody without something to show it is no linger his.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Universal background checks do, else there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

Are guns federally required to be registered when purchasing from a gun dealer?

Irrelevant to my point.

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

A record of transfer is a completely different subject

Absolutely incorrect.

Without the record of transfer, there is no way to prove that any given seller broke the law.
Thus, universal registration, which records the transfer, proving who owned the gun before the sale,, who owned the gun after the sale, and when the gun was transferred, is necessary for the enforcement of universal background checks,.

This isn't obvious to you?

 

[CMike]

Only people who consider themselves to be "gun nuts" should reply?

Feel free but all I hear from gun nuts is that gun owners are all safe and responsible folks who are totally in charge of their faculties at any given moment in time. I think not myself. This question is set to gauge just how belligerent someone has to be before the gun nutjobs will agree..."yeah, the guy who turned the Comfort Inn into a drive-through probably shouldn't have a .357 on his hip" (next Month in Texas he'll be able to).

Should he be allowed to owns car?

 

[CMike]

Yes he endangered the people in the area. You didn't watch the video?
No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration. Still acting like you actually believe someone is going to go door to door taking guns. What an idiot.

No…you are wrong. We already have federally mandated background checks for all gun purchases at gun stores and gun shows….that isn't enough for the gun grabbers. They want to mandate universal background checks for all transactions of guns….private sales as well as lending guns to relatives and friends and using guns in actual shooting classes….

So….in order to make universal background checks useful for private sales….you need to know who owns what guns, so when you find someone with a gun, you can know if they actually own that gun…and if they went through a private sale, if that sale had a background check attacked to it, otherwise they can just say, I have always owned this gun……

It defeats the entire purpose of mandating universal background checks for private sales if you don't register all guns….that is why they are pushing universal background checks.

As has been demonstrated by history, in Britain, France, Germany, and Australia….and New York and California….you have to register all guns before you ban them.

You're wrong. Which federal law mandates background checks at gun shows for the independent seller who happens to have a booth? That law doesn't exist. The federal background checks for gun dealers that we do have are not gun registration. They are only background checks. You are imagining something that doesn't exist. Universal registration is not the issue, if it ever is, then you can fight that,

You don't understand…..any federally licensed gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check right now….today…..an individual who sets up a booth is not a licensed gun dealer….

The gun grabbers want to force individual sellers……that means if I sell my gun to my brother, then I would have to go and get a background check on my brother before I sell him a .22 bolt action rifle………and in order to regulate that sale with a background check, they will need to know that 1) I originally owned the gun and 2) I sold the gun….

Without registration my brother can simply say he always owned the gun after I sell it to him……

Fighting pointless…useless, universal background checks is fighting universal registration….

It would also mean that you could legally sell that same gun to any thug who could never buy one from a dealer. Quit trying to change the subject. Which federal law closes the gun show loophole, and why would background checks for individuals require registration when dealer sales don't?

That thug simply has someone with a clean background check buy the gun right now, under current background checks and any future universal checks. There is no gun show loophole…..licensed gun dealers have to do background checks…individual sellers at gun shows or in their front yard do not.

That's a felony. It's called a straw purchase.

 

[BULLDOG]

Are guns federally required to be registered when purchasing from a gun dealer?

Irrelevant to my point.

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

A record of transfer is a completely different subject

Absolutely incorrect.

Without the record of transfer, there is no way to prove that any given seller broke the law.
Thus, universal registration, which records the transfer, proving who owned the gun before the sale,, who owned the gun after the sale, and when the gun was transferred, is necessary for the enforcement of universal background checks,.

This isn't obvious to you?

No it's not, and you are stretching to believe it. Background checks are background checks. Registration is registration. Not the same idiot.

 

[CMike]

No, background checks don't require registration any more than licensed dealers background checks require registration.

Universal background checks do, else there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

Are guns federally required to be registered when purchasing from a gun dealer?

Irrelevant to my point.

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law regarding background checks when selling a gun.

If it's a handgun in Michigan the transfer still had to be registered.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Irrelevant to my point.

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

A record of transfer is a completely different subject

Absolutely incorrect.

Without the record of transfer, there is no way to prove that any given seller broke the law.
Thus, universal registration, which records the transfer, proving who owned the gun before the sale,, who owned the gun after the sale, and when the gun was transferred, is necessary for the enforcement of universal background checks,.

This isn't obvious to you?

No it's not, and you are stretching to believe it. Background checks are background checks. Registration is registration. Not the same idiot.

I didn't say they were the same; at your request, I did explain why universal registration is necessary to enforce universal background checks -- a point you have done nothing to refute.
Why isn't this obvious to you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Bullshit. If universal registration is required for one, why is it not required for the other? Answer or admit your wrong.

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

A record of transfer is a completely different subject

Absolutely incorrect.

Without the record of transfer, there is no way to prove that any given seller broke the law.
Thus, universal registration, which records the transfer, proving who owned the gun before the sale,, who owned the gun after the sale, and when the gun was transferred, is necessary for the enforcement of universal background checks,.

This isn't obvious to you?

No it's not, and you are stretching to believe it. Background checks are background checks. Registration is registration. Not the same idiot.

I didn't say they were the same; at your request, I did explain why universal registration is necessary to enforce universal background checks -- a point you have done nothing to refute.
Why isn't this obvious to you?

Because it's not obvious. You are relying on some statement you heard long ago, and never actually questioned. You still haven't found that federal law that prevents gun show sales without background checks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This isn't obvious to you?

The transfer from a dealer to an individual is a known and proveable point in time where the gun exchanges hands, and therefore does not require universal registration to enforce the law requiring background checks - there is a record of transfer.

Absent universal registration, there is no record of transfer in a private sale; without this record , it impossible to prove that the transfer took place at a point were the background check was required. That being the case, there's no way for the state to prove that someone broke the law when selling a gun.

A record of transfer is a completely different subject

Absolutely incorrect.

Without the record of transfer, there is no way to prove that any given seller broke the law.
Thus, universal registration, which records the transfer, proving who owned the gun before the sale,, who owned the gun after the sale, and when the gun was transferred, is necessary for the enforcement of universal background checks,.

This isn't obvious to you?

No it's not, and you are stretching to believe it. Background checks are background checks. Registration is registration. Not the same idiot.

I didn't say they were the same; at your request, I did explain why universal registration is necessary to enforce universal background checks -- a point you have done nothing to refute.
Why isn't this obvious to you?

Because it's not obvious.

Why is it not obvious that you cannot enforce the law requiring UBC when you cannot prove someone broke the law?
Why is it not obvious that when you cannot prove that the person in question owned the gun, that the person in question sold the gun, and that the gun in question was sold while the law requiring the background checks was in place, you cannot prove that someone broke the law?
When you are unable to prove the law was broken, how is it possible to enforce the law?

 

[2aguy]

No…you are wrong. We already have federally mandated background checks for all gun purchases at gun stores and gun shows….that isn't enough for the gun grabbers. They want to mandate universal background checks for all transactions of guns….private sales as well as lending guns to relatives and friends and using guns in actual shooting classes….

So….in order to make universal background checks useful for private sales….you need to know who owns what guns, so when you find someone with a gun, you can know if they actually own that gun…and if they went through a private sale, if that sale had a background check attacked to it, otherwise they can just say, I have always owned this gun……

It defeats the entire purpose of mandating universal background checks for private sales if you don't register all guns….that is why they are pushing universal background checks.

As has been demonstrated by history, in Britain, France, Germany, and Australia….and New York and California….you have to register all guns before you ban them.

You're wrong. Which federal law mandates background checks at gun shows for the independent seller who happens to have a booth? That law doesn't exist. The federal background checks for gun dealers that we do have are not gun registration. They are only background checks. You are imagining something that doesn't exist. Universal registration is not the issue, if it ever is, then you can fight that,

You don't understand…..any federally licensed gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check right now….today…..an individual who sets up a booth is not a licensed gun dealer….

The gun grabbers want to force individual sellers……that means if I sell my gun to my brother, then I would have to go and get a background check on my brother before I sell him a .22 bolt action rifle………and in order to regulate that sale with a background check, they will need to know that 1) I originally owned the gun and 2) I sold the gun….

Without registration my brother can simply say he always owned the gun after I sell it to him……

Fighting pointless…useless, universal background checks is fighting universal registration….

It would also mean that you could legally sell that same gun to any thug who could never buy one from a dealer. Quit trying to change the subject. Which federal law closes the gun show loophole, and why would background checks for individuals require registration when dealer sales don't?

That thug simply has someone with a clean background check buy the gun right now, under current background checks and any future universal checks. There is no gun show loophole…..licensed gun dealers have to do background checks…individual sellers at gun shows or in their front yard do not.

Doesn't stand up to logic. Answer my questions. Federal law requires background checks for dealer sales without registration. What would be different about individual background checks that would require registration? And what federal law prevents unchecked gun sales at gun shows.? These are two things that you have repeatedly said, but never backed up.

M14 did a great job explaining it in post #287. The reason they want Universal Background checks even though private sales are not where criminals get their guns and they can get around them as easily as they do current background checks…registration…UVB checks are their way to get registration.

 

[2aguy]

No…you are wrong. We already have federally mandated background checks for all gun purchases at gun stores and gun shows….that isn't enough for the gun grabbers. They want to mandate universal background checks for all transactions of guns….private sales as well as lending guns to relatives and friends and using guns in actual shooting classes….

So….in order to make universal background checks useful for private sales….you need to know who owns what guns, so when you find someone with a gun, you can know if they actually own that gun…and if they went through a private sale, if that sale had a background check attacked to it, otherwise they can just say, I have always owned this gun……

It defeats the entire purpose of mandating universal background checks for private sales if you don't register all guns….that is why they are pushing universal background checks.

As has been demonstrated by history, in Britain, France, Germany, and Australia….and New York and California….you have to register all guns before you ban them.

You're wrong. Which federal law mandates background checks at gun shows for the independent seller who happens to have a booth? That law doesn't exist. The federal background checks for gun dealers that we do have are not gun registration. They are only background checks. You are imagining something that doesn't exist. Universal registration is not the issue, if it ever is, then you can fight that,

You don't understand…..any federally licensed gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check right now….today…..an individual who sets up a booth is not a licensed gun dealer….

The gun grabbers want to force individual sellers……that means if I sell my gun to my brother, then I would have to go and get a background check on my brother before I sell him a .22 bolt action rifle………and in order to regulate that sale with a background check, they will need to know that 1) I originally owned the gun and 2) I sold the gun….

Without registration my brother can simply say he always owned the gun after I sell it to him……

Fighting pointless…useless, universal background checks is fighting universal registration….

It would also mean that you could legally sell that same gun to any thug who could never buy one from a dealer. Quit trying to change the subject. Which federal law closes the gun show loophole, and why would background checks for individuals require registration when dealer sales don't?

That thug simply has someone with a clean background check buy the gun right now, under current background checks and any future universal checks. There is no gun show loophole…..licensed gun dealers have to do background checks…individual sellers at gun shows or in their front yard do not.

That's a felony. It's called a straw purchase.

Yes….it is. And it is one of two primary ways that criminals get guns. The first method is they steal them, then they use straw buyers. And it is also why Universal Background checks will be bypassed the same way….all they really want is gun registration..that is what UVB checks do…it gives them the reason for registration of guns.