Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

Lol
It should be like running a visa card, there’s no reason for to take any longer than a few seconds. But then again the deep state is all kinds of fucked up

Construct the software to do it and sell it. You’ll be a millionaire!

The ******* FBI is the bottle neck, Overpaid shit stains

Sounds like your just talking out of your ass as usual

Na, not really
They are always ******* around with me and my customers, What is really sad is most of my customers are military folk.
2 to 4 minutes is ******* ridiculous....

2 to 4 minutes is nothing. Many people want days and weeks

And let us not forget that not only do background checks often take a week, but that they only allow a person with an FFL to conduct the background check, so it always adds $20 to the cost of any transaction.

 

[Rigby5]

Improvided how? the system we have in place works its those that screw up that allows those that pass a background check that shouldn't
it's not a problem with the system the problem is with those running it

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

The ******* FBI needs to mind their own ******* business, They do live in an glass House

A risky the whole persuade of their organization is to dig into other people’s business. That’s literally their own business. Love the quote by the way... haha

That’s like the Masseuse needs to keep her hands to herself.

Actually no, the FBI is supposed to be extremely limited to things like interstate commerce, interstate communications crimes, counterfeiting, crimes against federal workers, etc.
The FBI has no jurisdiction over things like firearms or drugs, because there has to be an article in the Constitution to explicitly state any federal jurisdiction. And there isn't any things granting federal jurisdiction over guns or drugs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The ******* FBI is the bottle neck, Overpaid shit stains

Sounds like your just talking out of your ass as usual

Na, not really
They are always ******* around with me and my customers, What is really sad is most of my customers are military folk.
2 to 4 minutes is ******* ridiculous....

2 to 4 minutes is nothing. Many people want days and weeks

Now that's a good idea. A woman breaks up with her boyfriend or husband who threatens to kill her. She buys a gun and has to wait weeks to get it. What does she do in the meantime?

I never said I supported that idea. I will give you the counter argument though.

A woman breaks up with her boyfriend who wants to kill her and he goes to a gun store in a rage to get a gun to do just that. The waiting period gives him a chance to cool his jets.

If he really wants to kill her, he can do that with a bat or knife.

I never even held a gun in my life until I got robbed. I knew the people who did it too, and they were a dangerous bunch. The police couldn't do anything because I didn't witness the robbery, no neighbors seen it either.

So the father of my closest friend at the time bought and sold guns at flea markets and gun shows, and I bought a snub nose .38 from him, and yes, some ammo too.

I made sure to get the word to the people who robbed me that I was prepared to kill the next intruder. In fact I told them I had a friend coming over to take my car off the property so it looked like I wasn't home so they would bust down the door again. They disappeared and never came back.

 

[Rigby5]

The ******* FBI is the bottle neck, Overpaid shit stains

Sounds like your just talking out of your ass as usual

Na, not really
They are always ******* around with me and my customers, What is really sad is most of my customers are military folk.
2 to 4 minutes is ******* ridiculous....

2 to 4 minutes is nothing. Many people want days and weeks

Now that's a good idea. A woman breaks up with her boyfriend or husband who threatens to kill her. She buys a gun and has to wait weeks to get it. What does she do in the meantime?

I never said I supported that idea. I will give you the counter argument though.

A woman breaks up with her boyfriend who wants to kill her and he goes to a gun store in a rage to get a gun to do just that. The waiting period gives him a chance to cool his jets.

No, because someone intending murder will not be deterred by the minor additional gun charge of buying illegally.
It is ONLY honest people who are impacted by things like waiting periods, background checks, etc.
The criminals will only laugh at the fact the laws are making things easier for them, by disarming the honest people.

 

[TRFjr]

do you support more gun laws even though we don't enforce the ones we already have?
do you want tough sentencing to discourage the breaking of are already existent gun laws even if it will disproportionately lock up minorities?

I don’t think gun regulations are the answer alone. I think improving our background check system would do some good so I’d support that, I think better counseling and education in schools is good and I’d support those efforts, I’d have to learn more about what’s happening in our criminal justice system in regards to how that’s going.

Improvided how? the system we have in place works its those that screw up that allows those that pass a background check that shouldn't
it's not a problem with the system the problem is with those running it

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

to put it bluntly, I don't trust the federal government they have been given to much power already and giving them the amount of information required to operate universal background checks it will be used and abused other than just preventing criminals from buying guns

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t think gun regulations are the answer alone. I think improving our background check system would do some good so I’d support that, I think better counseling and education in schools is good and I’d support those efforts, I’d have to learn more about what’s happening in our criminal justice system in regards to how that’s going.

Improvided how? the system we have in place works its those that screw up that allows those that pass a background check that shouldn't
it's not a problem with the system the problem is with those running it

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

 

[TRFjr]

Improvided how? the system we have in place works its those that screw up that allows those that pass a background check that shouldn't
it's not a problem with the system the problem is with those running it

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

the vast majority of gun murders are criminals shooting other criminals which niether of those criminals obtained thier guns legally
background doesn't save as many lives as you assume it does just like making drugs illegal stops us from having illegal drug epidemics
if there is a demand there will always be a supply so if you want to curve gun violence you need to stop demand and the way to stop the demand is to eliminate the source of that demand and that are criminals

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t think gun regulations are the answer alone. I think improving our background check system would do some good so I’d support that, I think better counseling and education in schools is good and I’d support those efforts, I’d have to learn more about what’s happening in our criminal justice system in regards to how that’s going.

Improvided how? the system we have in place works its those that screw up that allows those that pass a background check that shouldn't
it's not a problem with the system the problem is with those running it

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

to put it bluntly, I don't trust the federal government they have been given to much power already and giving them the amount of information required to operate universal background checks it will be used and abused other than just preventing criminals from buying guns

I appreciate your honesty. You should stick to that argument. I think that most people have the same fears but then they get lost trying to argue that laws and regulations don’t work.

 

[Slade3200]

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

the vast majority of gun murders are criminals shooting other criminals which niether of those criminals obtained thier guns legally
background doesn't save as many lives as you assume it does just like making drugs illegal stops us from having illegal drug epidemics
if there is a demand there will always be a supply so if you want to curve gun violence you need to stop demand and the way to stop the demand is to eliminate the source of that demand and that are criminals

Agreed but we also need to regulate the legal commerce of deadly weapons. It’s kinda crazy that there is so much debate over that simple idea.

 

[Rigby5]

Improvided how? the system we have in place works its those that screw up that allows those that pass a background check that shouldn't
it's not a problem with the system the problem is with those running it

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

 

[Rigby5]

Improvided how? the system we have in place works its those that screw up that allows those that pass a background check that shouldn't
it's not a problem with the system the problem is with those running it

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

to put it bluntly, I don't trust the federal government they have been given to much power already and giving them the amount of information required to operate universal background checks it will be used and abused other than just preventing criminals from buying guns

I appreciate your honesty. You should stick to that argument. I think that most people have the same fears but then they get lost trying to argue that laws and regulations don’t work.

Sure laws can work, such as a law against murder can work to intimidate murderers.
But that is NOT what you are describing.
You are falsely claiming that a minor charge for illegal possession of a firearm will prevent people from committing mass murder and suicide. And clearly that is not just false, but irrational, and a deliberate lie.

 

[Rigby5]

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

the vast majority of gun murders are criminals shooting other criminals which niether of those criminals obtained thier guns legally
background doesn't save as many lives as you assume it does just like making drugs illegal stops us from having illegal drug epidemics
if there is a demand there will always be a supply so if you want to curve gun violence you need to stop demand and the way to stop the demand is to eliminate the source of that demand and that are criminals

Agreed but we also need to regulate the legal commerce of deadly weapons. It’s kinda crazy that there is so much debate over that simple idea.

The only time we need to restrict the legal commerce of deadly weapons is from a corrupt government getting a monopoly on them.
An armed general population is a happy, free, and law abiding community.
It is totally insane and criminal to even consider restricting the rights of the general population, and treason to instead deliberately attempt to create a monopoly on weapons by the corrupt government.
And if you try to argue that government is not corrupt, then explain why they lied about Iraqi WMD and murdered over half a million innocent Iraqis?

 

[Slade3200]

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

That makes no sense because background checks have been proven to be totally ineffective.
Most mass murders, for example, were committed by people who passed background checks with not problem.
In fact, one of the worst mass murders was Paddock, who actually had a federal firearms license.

I personally believe in privacy, so I have only once bought a firearm through a background check.
No one who wants to commit a crime ever has to go through a background check because like illegal drugs, there are lots of people willing to sell illegal guns as well.

So all universal background checks do is provide the BATF with a list of all legal gun purchases, and none of the illegal ones. Totally useless unless you intend to illegally start confiscating firearms from legal owners.

And your suggestion of encryption makes no sense. The only people we do not want to know who the gun owners are, are the BATF. And obviously if you encrypt the database run by the BATF, that is not going to prevent BATF access because they will have to be the ones to create the encryption scheme.
But you also have it backwards, in that the government, through DOD funded projects, has created almost all the computer technology. The DOD created the internet for example, originally called DARPANET. Encryption and decryption is what the DOD originally created computers for, in the 1940s.

I hear you using cherry picked situations to try and explain universal principles but that isn’t honest. Sure many people have passed BG checks and then committed crimes. Yes, many that can’t get guns in stores can get them on the black market. But you ignore the key group which are those that don’t get guns because of the laws. Those who get arrested for having guns because there are laws making it illegal. Those forced to go underground to get weapons and then getting caught. Is because of the law that these people either don’t arm up or get caught. This saves lives.

Nonsense.
None of the mass murderers would have failed a background check.
And the few odd cases where a felon with an illegal gun was discovered before they committed a crime is totally insignificant.
They are ALL arming up, because the War on Drugs has made the whole country into a shooting gallery, so every has to arm up.
There is not a single unarmed drug dealer, because if he was unarmed, someone would steal the money he has that can't be put into banks.
Over 90% of the murders in the US are due to the War on Drugs.
So you are NOT disarming anyone intent on crime by passing more gun control laws.
All you are doing is intimidating the honest people, thus making crime much easier and lucrative.
Not only does gun control not work because it is impossible to intimidate those intent on more serious charges anyway, but gun control is to unpatriotic, inherently criminal, and completely against the principles of a democratic republic, that it destroys the whole credibility of the government. Decent people then despise the government for being so corrupt.
Clearly in a democratic republic, if people can not have guns, then police and the military, who are just employees of the people, can not possibly have guns either.

Well I do agree with you there. The war on drugs was and is a disaster and has done nothing but fuel the power of gangs and criminals. Legalization can’t happen soon enough. It’s a no brainer

 

[Slade3200]

How well do you know the current system? Can you explain why you support it but not universal BG checks? What are the differentiators?

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

to put it bluntly, I don't trust the federal government they have been given to much power already and giving them the amount of information required to operate universal background checks it will be used and abused other than just preventing criminals from buying guns

I appreciate your honesty. You should stick to that argument. I think that most people have the same fears but then they get lost trying to argue that laws and regulations don’t work.

Sure laws can work, such as a law against murder can work to intimidate murderers.
But that is NOT what you are describing.
You are falsely claiming that a minor charge for illegal possession of a firearm will prevent people from committing mass murder and suicide. And clearly that is not just false, but irrational, and a deliberate lie.

I’m not claiming that. I’m saying a law preventing a pissed off high schooler from buying a machine gun is a good thing. A law not letting high risk people like felons and the mentally disturbed carry guns around is a good thing because if they get caught they get arrested. We also don’t facilitate access to the most dangerous weapons in the world through our legal commerce system, so we do checks to make sure responsible people are purchasing. That should be common sense.

 

[Blues Man]

Except law enforcement isn't doing their job when it comes to illegal guns.

And once again so called universal background checks won't change anything because criminals already get around that law

Why exactly do you oppose universal background checks? You support state BG checks right?

Because they are utterly unenforceable without a national registry and I will never be in favor of a gun registry.

Not a single criminal who can't legally buy s gun now will be affected by universal background checks

Do you feel the same about our current BG check system? Or is that also useless and should be done away with?

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

 

[Rigby5]

the current system allows states to either use the FBI provided check or use its own system or a combination of both
the problem with universal checks is first the FBI has proven incompetent
second, states they will have to provide the FBI with all its crime records giving the FBI to much power because then the FBI could use that information more than a data bank for background checks but for other nefarious reasons the FBI has proven they can't be trusted
third, it will give the federal government the information to be able to create a gun registry which would be used for gun confiscation

Thanks for explaining that. Would I be correct to assume it’s your last two points that bring the real concern?

I’d think that if you support background checks, which it sounds like you do because they indeed are effective... you’d want the most comprehensive database and widespread access to info.

I’d also think that your security concerns could be addressed through encryption. Tech can do great things now a days. One thing the gov needs to catch up on

to put it bluntly, I don't trust the federal government they have been given to much power already and giving them the amount of information required to operate universal background checks it will be used and abused other than just preventing criminals from buying guns

I appreciate your honesty. You should stick to that argument. I think that most people have the same fears but then they get lost trying to argue that laws and regulations don’t work.

Sure laws can work, such as a law against murder can work to intimidate murderers.
But that is NOT what you are describing.
You are falsely claiming that a minor charge for illegal possession of a firearm will prevent people from committing mass murder and suicide. And clearly that is not just false, but irrational, and a deliberate lie.

I’m not claiming that. I’m saying a law preventing a pissed off high schooler from buying a machine gun is a good thing. A law not letting high risk people like felons and the mentally disturbed carry guns around is a good thing because if they get caught they get arrested. We also don’t facilitate access to the most dangerous weapons in the world through our legal commerce system, so we do checks to make sure responsible people are purchasing. That should be common sense.

High schoolers have not been able to buy a machine gun since the 1930s, and even back in the 1930s when it was easy for kids to buy a machine gun, mail order, for $27, there was absolutely no case of it every happening.
Accessibility of weapons has NEVER been a factor in determining if someone is going to commit mass murder or not.
The fact mass murders are happening now, shows that something ELSE is seriously wrong now, and needs to be fixed, desperately. What ever is wrong, like over population, future shock, lack of opportunity, disorientation from lack of communities, media over load, etc. MUST be fixed, and trying to instead cover up the symptoms, will only prevent it from being fixed.
What should be common sense is that when you have have massive systemic problems, that you fix the source of the problem. You do not instead decide to turn our once democratic republic into a concentration camp where the government dictates everything. Because when you defy the intent of the founders, and rely in mercenary police and military instead of a militia and citizen soldiers, the only possible result always has to be a draconian dictatorship.

It is a lie to claim that felons are a risk. About 40% of the Black population now is illegally denied the right to vote over drug related felony convictions. The federal government has no authority over things like drugs at all, and they should not be dictating rights like whether after their sentence is over, if they can vote, defend themselves, etc.

And high risk people obviously can not be allowed out on the street. The idea of instead trying to make the entire world nerf safe so that you can let just anyone run around and do what ever they want, is insane. The high risk people do NOT at all need firearms to murder millions of people. If for example at a school shooting, like Harris and Klebold, they have instead just gone into the basement and opened a gas pipe, they could have left a timer and departed. They would not even have been there when hundreds would have died. So they could have gone on doing it over and over. The fact they instead use firearm is because the media has show that firearms get the best coverage. And it is a good thing, because firearms are so loud that they sound the alarm, and prevent REALLY LARGE mass murders, like arson, explosives, poisons, etc., could easily do. For example, ricin is easily available, and all someone would have to do in order to kill millions, is to back flush ricin into the water inlet in any home, with a higher pressure pump. To think firearms are the main danger, or that one could make the whole world into a prison camp to prevent access to dangerous technology, is just insane. It is so irrational that I can only see it as a deliberate lie, intended on finding feeble justifications for deliberately changing this country from a democratic republic, into a prison camp.

I have lots more to say, but likely even this won't be read anyway.

 

[Jets]

The problem with gun control is that neither side is interested in working toward a compromise. Banning assault weapons can not translate into legislation with those who are 2nd amendment purists. Too many people will continue to dig their heels in and defend their positions.

 

[Rigby5]

Why exactly do you oppose universal background checks? You support state BG checks right?

Because they are utterly unenforceable without a national registry and I will never be in favor of a gun registry.

Not a single criminal who can't legally buy s gun now will be affected by universal background checks

Do you feel the same about our current BG check system? Or is that also useless and should be done away with?

I have no problem with the current system
It's as good as it can be without a gun registry

But I also know that it really does not stop criminals from getting guns

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then why waste resources doing background checks? Why would you support repealing them all together?

It's the best we can do without a national gun registry. Perfect is the enemy of good in this case

And it does keep criminals in the underground market. Now if we charge every person caught illegally possessing a gun with a federal crime and sentenced them all to 5 years in federal prison we'd actually be focusing on laws that target criminals not law abiding people

So you don't see a problem with changing our once democratic republic into a multi tiered society, where those convicted of illegal federal drug or gun laws, are no longer allowed to vote, defend themselves, etc.?
You don't mind the federal government violating the Bill of Rights and usurping state authority?

Convicted felons, which can include anyone bouncing a check for over $100, have to live in the most dangerous neighborhoods, and actually need a weapon for defense more than anyone else. But even though they are denied representation, we still tax them. Don't you find that taxation without representation, inherently illegal?

The whole Congress deliberately lied to us about Iraq WMD, and murdered over half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, with Shock and Awe. So why is it they are not prosecuted and held to the same standards?

 

[Rigby5]

The problem with gun control is that neither side is interested in working toward a compromise. Banning assault weapons can not translate into legislation with those who are 2nd amendment purists. Too many people will continue to dig their heels in and defend their positions.

There is no such thing as a purist.
An assault weapons ban is just an absurd lie, deliberately intended as part of a total confiscation scheme of all weapons.
That is because there is nothing remotely unusual about the AR type of weapons that is about the only firearms made or sold any more. There is absolutely no reason at all to ban them, banning them would put almost all firearms manufacturers out of business, and it would make about 40 million people into criminals.

What you have to understand it that all weapons can be used as or considered assault weapons.
Historically that has included the blunderbuss or the sawed off shotgun of the Revolutionary war, the pair of revolvers of the Civil war cavalry units, the trench shot gun of WWI, the carbine of WWII, etc.
All of these weapons can easily be used to kill hundreds of people, and are technology hundreds of years old, that anyone can easily make themselves even.
The notion of attempting to ban anything dangerous in our modern technology is just insane.
It can not possibly be done.
Those proposing we try it anyway, have to be lying.
No one could be that stupid.
Obviously we instead have to fix what is making people so violent, like over population, future shock, lack of community, media hype, lack of job stability, etc.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem with gun control is that neither side is interested in working toward a compromise. Banning assault weapons can not translate into legislation with those who are 2nd amendment purists. Too many people will continue to dig their heels in and defend their positions.

There is no such thing as a purist.
An assault weapons ban is just an absurd lie, deliberately intended as part of a total confiscation scheme of all weapons.
That is because there is nothing remotely unusual about the AR type of weapons that is about the only firearms made or sold any more. There is absolutely no reason at all to ban them, banning them would put almost all firearms manufacturers out of business, and it would make about 40 million people into criminals.

What you have to understand it that all weapons can be used as or considered assault weapons.
Historically that has included the blunderbuss or the sawed off shotgun of the Revolutionary war, the pair of revolvers of the Civil war cavalry units, the trench shot gun of WWI, the carbine of WWII, etc.
All of these weapons can easily be used to kill hundreds of people, and are technology hundreds of years old, that anyone can easily make themselves even.
The notion of attempting to ban anything dangerous in our modern technology is just insane.
It can not possibly be done.
Those proposing we try it anyway, have to be lying.
No one could be that stupid.
Obviously we instead have to fix what is making people so violent, like over population, future shock, lack of community, media hype, lack of job stability, etc.

Using your thought pattern, I bet you can't wait until Death Race 2020. Start sharpening up those hubcaps today.