Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here:I'm not sure where your stats come from, but lets just say %45 ADMIT to keeping guns. Any possibility that the other %55 don't tell anyone?
I've never been surveyed, but I'd be dipped in shit before I told anyone I didn't know what I had.
So count me in as a %55'er who keeps his business to himself.
Guns In America, By The Numbers
Please note -your- failure in this regard.Let's be frank here. There is NO rational discourse on guns here. It's either ACCEPT guns at all cost no matter what. Or Else ...There isn't any debate here. Rational debate would imply some depth of thought and reason
I'm not referring to a situation whereby you are at a firing range with a friend. I'm referring to a friend coming to your home and asking to borrow your gun (saying he/she wants to do a little solitary plunking or range activity).While I am 100% pro-gun ownership, I don't agree with the stance that you shouldn't do a background check on close relatives receiving your guns, or giving your friend a gun temporarily. There have been instances where friends have borrowed guns, committed crimes with them and returned them to the owner. Close relatives may also have a mental illness or criminal past and if they are in line to inherit the weapons, they need to be checked out to ensure they are not someone who would not otherwise be eligible for one.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
So....you need to get a background check with your friend at the range .....hey, let me shoot that pistol...see if I like it....sorry, we have to pay 25 dollars or more and wait 3 days to get your background check done....you mean like that?
Translation: We need to pass Chicago-like gun control laws all through the US.Well, the cops say the guns are coming in illegally from Indiana, which is next door and has lax gun control laws.
Considering how impossible it has been for the federal government to pass any gun control legislation, even after Sandy Hook, I don't understand why you folks are so concerned about that.A nice idea, but the problem with that is every time we give concessions to the anti-gun crowd, they use it as as stepping stone to more anti-gun laws.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
Example, I've asked several anti-gun proponents on 3 different political forums "If we passed Obama's 2013 gun control, would you be satisfied that our nation has sufficient gun control laws and never, ever ask for additional gun legislation?" None of them ever replied much less reply in the affirmative. The silent point was that, no, they wouldn't be satisfied.
There would be less guns floating around for criminals to buy/steal if transfers were done legally. The only way to enforce legal transfers is to hold the last legal owner responsible for any crime committed with the weapon. It is a small cost and very minor inconvenience, since there are gun stores in the tiniest towns that can do the checks. The cost can be added to the price of the gun.Again,
Law abiding people will pay and have the transfers done legally.
It will add to the cost and inconvenience of what should otherwise be a transaction the government has no right to interfere with.
Those who are willing TO COMMIT MURDER will not abide by the law. If they have to kill the potential seller to avoid the BG check they will do so.
I already told you that most of those guns reported as "stolen," probably weren't, since they weren't reported to the police.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
Yet you still can't tell me what type of background check the person that stole my gun will go through for possessing that gun.
Until that criminal goes through a background check, expecting those of us that have never committed a crime to go through one so you can feel better is a problem. I'm not jumping through you damn hoops so you can say you did something to make yourself feel better.
It is to reduce the # of illegally owned guns on the street. Less sold to unvetted buyers, less to sell to a thug.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
Yet you still can't tell me what type of background check the person that stole my gun will go through for possessing that gun.
Until that criminal goes through a background check, expecting those of us that have never committed a crime to go through one so you can feel better is a problem. I'm not jumping through you damn hoops so you can say you did something to make yourself feel better.
I'm not sure voting and having a background check when purchasing an optional firearm are the same thing. I have nothing against voter ID as long as it is reasonably inexpensive. I believe around here a background check costs less than a birth certificate in many states.There would be less guns floating around for criminals to buy/steal if transfers were done legally. The only way to enforce legal transfers is to hold the last legal owner responsible for any crime committed with the weapon. It is a small cost and very minor inconvenience, since there are gun stores in the tiniest towns that can do the checks. The cost can be added to the price of the gun.Again,
Law abiding people will pay and have the transfers done legally.
It will add to the cost and inconvenience of what should otherwise be a transaction the government has no right to interfere with.
Those who are willing TO COMMIT MURDER will not abide by the law. If they have to kill the potential seller to avoid the BG check they will do so.
Legal transfers like you suggest aren't going to change the number of guns around.
"It's a small cost and a very minor inconvenience". That's what I say about voter ID. Funny how that argument is wrong when it comes to proving you are who you say you are but perfectly OK to the very people that want to infringe on a right in the 2nd amendment.
No need to cuss, Muhammed. Background checks don't outlaw armaments.Fuck off. If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
Your failure to meaningfully address the issue was expected.“Rational discourse on gun control”
…requires that participants in such a discourse acknowledge the settled and accepted fact – a fact of law beyond dispute – that, although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
Unfortunately, there are irrational extremists who refuse to acknowledge this settled, accepted fact of law, rendering any hope of rational discourse impossible and pointless.
Why wouldn't you report a stolen weapon? If you think my reasoning is false, I wish you would explain where I'm going wrong.I already told you that most of those guns reported as "stolen," probably weren't, since they weren't reported to the police.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
Yet you still can't tell me what type of background check the person that stole my gun will go through for possessing that gun.
Until that criminal goes through a background check, expecting those of us that have never committed a crime to go through one so you can feel better is a problem. I'm not jumping through you damn hoops so you can say you did something to make yourself feel better.
I already told you that your reasoning behind your statement is false. You say they really weren't stolen because, in your simply mind, you can't fathom why someone wouldn't do something the way you would do it.
Some dumbass in my neighborhood dented the door of my wife's car that was facing the sidewalk. I have an idea who it is but can't prove it. That means I get to pay to have it fixed. Should I file it on insurance?
How could it be a "tax" if it were free? I would be 100% behind such a suggestion. I have nothing against Voter ID. However, households living in real poverty and on welfare benefits can't free up $90 or $100; their budgets are too tight.I'm not sure voting and having a background check when purchasing an optional firearm are the same thing. I have nothing against voter ID as long as it is reasonably inexpensive. I believe around here a background check costs less than a birth certificate in many states.There would be less guns floating around for criminals to buy/steal if transfers were done legally. The only way to enforce legal transfers is to hold the last legal owner responsible for any crime committed with the weapon. It is a small cost and very minor inconvenience, since there are gun stores in the tiniest towns that can do the checks. The cost can be added to the price of the gun.Again,
Law abiding people will pay and have the transfers done legally.
It will add to the cost and inconvenience of what should otherwise be a transaction the government has no right to interfere with.
Those who are willing TO COMMIT MURDER will not abide by the law. If they have to kill the potential seller to avoid the BG check they will do so.
Legal transfers like you suggest aren't going to change the number of guns around.
"It's a small cost and a very minor inconvenience". That's what I say about voter ID. Funny how that argument is wrong when it comes to proving you are who you say you are but perfectly OK to the very people that want to infringe on a right in the 2nd amendment.
Define reasonable. That's the problem, again, with your kind. You make statements like "reasonable", "common sense", etc. then want to be the ones to define them.
Free voter IDs were offered and Liberals still opposed it oftentimes equating it to a poll tax.
You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.Agreed about the process and the unlikelihood of repealing or altering the Second Amendment. The anti-gun Left knows this too and that's why they prefer to chip away at it with "reasonable" gun laws than try to do exactly what they want head on; repeal the Second Amendment....If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.
As mentioned previously, every gun control law they've passed has been a stepping stone for the next. If Obama had successfully passed his 2013 anti-gun bill, then the anti-gun left would be standing on it to add more "reasonable" laws such as "If a limit of 10-round magazines is good, why not limit them to 5 rounds?"
You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.Agreed about the process and the unlikelihood of repealing or altering the Second Amendment. The anti-gun Left knows this too and that's why they prefer to chip away at it with "reasonable" gun laws than try to do exactly what they want head on; repeal the Second Amendment....If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.
As mentioned previously, every gun control law they've passed has been a stepping stone for the next. If Obama had successfully passed his 2013 anti-gun bill, then the anti-gun left would be standing on it to add more "reasonable" laws such as "If a limit of 10-round magazines is good, why not limit them to 5 rounds?"
You have not answered these questions:You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.
Can anyone explain what this has to do with universal background checks?Translation: We need to pass Chicago-like gun control laws all through the US.Well, the cops say the guns are coming in illegally from Indiana, which is next door and has lax gun control laws.
Okay, then what would happen when the Cartels add guns to their list of products? Has the drug war actually stopped or limited drugs? No. Why do you expect the "gun war" would be more effective?
What I mean is, you can't prove any evidence that IF Obama's legislation had passed, that anything you predict would have come about. Don't hold me to one level of proof and then go spinning off into LaLa Land for your own arguments.You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.Agreed about the process and the unlikelihood of repealing or altering the Second Amendment. The anti-gun Left knows this too and that's why they prefer to chip away at it with "reasonable" gun laws than try to do exactly what they want head on; repeal the Second Amendment....If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.
As mentioned previously, every gun control law they've passed has been a stepping stone for the next. If Obama had successfully passed his 2013 anti-gun bill, then the anti-gun left would be standing on it to add more "reasonable" laws such as "If a limit of 10-round magazines is good, why not limit them to 5 rounds?"
he did not make an empirical conclusion
History shows me to be correct, but don't take my word for it. Let's just stick with the status quo, ummkay?You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.
Sorry M, I've answered that already. You can chase your tail, but I'm done.You have not answered these questions:You have not provided a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate your argument is valid.
Why do you think people dealing in stolen or "illegal" guns, would run background check on their customers?
How do you prove that any given transfer was required to have a background check, but did not?
Absent these things, how will your idea solve the problem you specified?
